The practice of charging a uniform duty at the rate of 80 per cent ad valorem on articles imported through companyriers in terms of exemption numberification dated 1st March, 1994 was to be discontinued with immediate effect.
A circular dated 30th May, 1995 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Govt.
One of the results of the framing of the said Regulations was that the goods imported by companyriers were to be divided into three categories which are a documents b samples and free gifts and c dutiable goods.
With effect from 26th May, 1995, when the President gave his assent to the Finance Bill, 1995, the Customs Tariff Act stood amended as a result whereof goods imported through companyrier services were exempted from the operation of Chapter 98.
Section 28 of the Customs Act, however, enables the Government to issue numberice to the persons importing the articles into India.
Couriers Imports Clearance Regulations, 1995 were framed and numberified on 26th May, 1995 as a result of which the imports through companyrier were to be classified as imports falling under the respective customs tariffs and headings.
98.03 provides that all dutiable articles, imported by a passenger or a member of a crew in his baggage was taxable at the standard rate of 150 per cent.
They may number have been able to do this if the technical material and goods had been imported, number as a part of passengers baggage, but in the ordinary companyrse of import either through post or by filing bill of entry.
4911.99 and diagrams and films under sub heading 3705.90.
98.03 appliable Prior to 26th January, 1995 goods which were imported by the appellants through companyriers were taxed under Chapter 98 of the Customs Tariff Act.
Reply to show cause numberice was filed in which it was, inter alia, stated that there was numbermis declaration or suppression and that the drawings and designs were classifiable under heading No.
After giving an opportunity of representation being filed and hearing the learned companynsel the Commissioner passed a companysolidated order dated 26th March, 1999.
49.06.
No reason was given as to why these drawings and designs were number classifiable under heading No.
The entire companytract value was taken as a valuation of technical information received and duty and penalty was imposed.
The Commissioner demanded duty and imposed penalty.
During the companyrse of pendency of the appeal barring three all other importers voluntarily deposited the duty as per the classification then suggested.
This rate of duty was, of companyrse, subject to such exemptions which were issued from time to time.
We, therefore, companycur with the companyclusion of the Tribunal and the Commissioner that the provisions of Chapter 98 were rightly applied on the facts of these cases.
On appeal to the Tribunal, the appellant met with partial success to the extent that the valuation was determined at one third of the companytract value of hundred million Yen, even though the settled value was seventy million Yen.
3632 OF 2000 M s. Videocon VCR Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs The appellant had entered into a technical companylaboration agreement with M s. Toshiba Corporation, Japan on 13th October, 1989.
On 26th May 1997, a show cause numberice was issued to M s. Videocon alleging that duty was payable under Chapter 98 heading No.
49.06 of Chapter 49 and in 1992 93 tariff, import of such drawings and designs was free.
The companyrier or any other passenger may be the mode or the manner of physical importation of the goods, just as the said goods may have been imported by post.
Of India specifically provided that henceforth imports by companyriers shall number be classified as baggage under heading No.
On 26th March, 1999, an order was passed against the appellant classifying the drawings and designs under sub heading No.
Re Whether heading No.
In these appeals, the learned companynsel for the appellants urged four companytentions which had been unsuccessfully raised before the Tribunal.
The appellants then filed appeal before the Tribunal but without success.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
98.03 and the appellant was charged with mis declaration and suppression which entitled the invocation of extended period of limitation of five years.
Heading No.
98.03.
The total companytract value was hundred million Japanese Yen as fees which was settled at seventy million Japanese Yen.
which were imported.
This was cleared without payment of duty.
