2004 (6) TMI 210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alue, Rs. 1. 1246 DT. 7-1-98 2000 pcs. of 31 types of populated pcbs for VCP VIP -T8K 8522.90 57,000.00 2,295,895.00 2. 2860 D.T. 19-1-98 2000 sets of parts & components for VCP VIP - T8K 8522.90 8544.19 7318.50 4016.90 8533.29 105,000.00 4,308,911.00 3. 3504 DT. 20-1-98 1000 pcs electronic tuner for VCP VIP-T8K 8522.90 4,000.00 164,162.00 4. 3197 DT. 19-1-98 1000 pcs. electronic tuner for VCP VIP-T8K 8522.90 4,000.00 164,139.00 5. 71132 DT. 30-12-97 399 pcs. of 3 types of populated pcbs for VCR VRA-388 8522.90 20,748.00 835,792.00 6. 1146 DT. 7-1-98 399 sets of parts & components for VCR VRA-388 8522.90 8544.19 7318.50 4016.90 8533.29 3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondition. They relied on Rule 2(a) of the "General Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975" for this purpose. The department took the view that the appellants had misdeclared the goods as components/parts of VCRs/VCPs to circumvent the restriction of import of VCRs/VCPs as also to evade customs duty. Import of VCRs & VCPs required specific licence, which the appellants did not have. Therefore, the authorities held the imports to be unauthorised and the goods to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. On the basis of alleged misdeclaration of goods, they also held the party to be liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act. The appellants waived show-cause notice and requested for early adj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch indicated that the appellants' intention was to use the goods as such for manufacture of VCRs. Ld. Counsel also relied on the Tribunal's decision in Award Electronics v. CC, Chennai [2003 (153) E.L.T. 210 (T)] wherein digital Video Camera parts imported and cleared under different Bills of Entry were held not liable to be treated as complete equipment but only as parts of Digital Video Camera. The DR reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. He also pointed out that the Larger Bench decision in Sony India (supra) had been appealed against by the department. 3. We have considered the submissions. There is no dispute of the fact that the items in each consignment covered by a Bill of Entry were parts of either VCR or VCP. T....