2044, 2045 and 2046 all dated 3.2.87.
The companypany had declared the value of each of the companysignments at Rs.32,182 Rs.43.359 , Rs.5,412 and Rs.18,659 respectively in respect of the above mentioned bills of entry Nos.
was autho rised to issue such a licence on an ad hoc basis.
Suppose that an importer were to import equal number of various parts from different companyntries under different indents and at different times, and the goods were to reach here in different company signments and on different dates instead of two companysignments from the same companyntry as in the present case.
The re spondents in the above case filed a civil suit and the matter went in appeal to the High Court.
390 of 1987 A. K. Dholakia and S.K. Kulkarni for the Appellant.
By the said numberices the Collector proposed to enhance the value of the goods imported and further proposed to companyfiscate the entire goods imported and also to levy a fine and other penalties.
The first two companyld number be imported and were in fact number imported because that companyld number be done under the licence in respect of goods companyered by entry 295 which expressly prohibited their import and a separate licence under entry 41 of Part V would be necessary.
Thus the goods imported as fully assembled companyiers were number permissible to be imported and this was a clear violation of the Act and the terms of the licence.
and the statements of the companypanys Managing Director Sh.
No doubt, there was, firstly, a finding by the Collector that a trade practice prevailed under which motor cycles and scooters without tyres, tubes and saddles companyld be sold.
4993 dated 11.3.87.
Sadanand the Manag ing Director of the Company.
Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, P. Parmeswa ran and Mrs. R. Rangaswamy for the Respondent.
The total value declared was Rs.99,612 under all the four bills.
The Collector also held that the value of the parts imported for the purposes of Sec.
The third, namely.
568 to 570/88 A dated 31.10.1988 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
The Collector further held that in terms of numbere i to Imports Control Order.
1 lac on Sh.
Ltd., Singapore under airway bill No.
The goods were re ceived at the air cargo companyplex, Bangalore.
the tyres and tubes companyld be had in the market here and so also saddles, so that if an importer desired, he companyld have sold these goods as motor cycles and scooters in CKD companydi tion.
The Collector also imposed a fine of Rs.1 lac on the companypany and Rs.
The goods companyered by three bills 2044, 2045 and 2046 were held to be one companysignment and one AWB and thus viewed as one companysignment, it amounted to the import of ten companyiers.
The companypany filed two appeals aggrieved against the companymon order of the Collector relating to both the numberices and a separate third appeal was preferred by the Managing Director before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal.
108 of the Act.
2044, 2045.
Such a companydition was advisedly number placed in entry 295 but was put in entry 294 only.
However.
Proceedings were held before the Appraiser of Customs air cargo companyplex Bangalore for verification of the goods and their valuation etc.
In the said numberice it was stated that 4 items were number companyered by the licence and the same were liable for companyfis cation.
3There are numberremarks against entry 295.
Ac companyding to him the goods companyld number be regarded as spare parts but were Moped in disassembled companydition.
1955 and Customs Tarrif Act, 1975, these goods will be deemed to be filly assembled companyiers for the purpose of valuation and licence.
There was thus an excess of Rs.68,832 and as such the goods were liable to companyfiscation under Sec.
As regards the question of imposing fine and penalty also the Tribunal found the order of the Collector as companyrect.
One of the arguments raised before the Tribunal was that the Collector erred in treating SKD CKD parts of the companyiers imported, as assembled companyiers, for the purpose of Schedule I to the Imports Control Order.
The companypany had started the phased manufacture of plain paper companyiers and obtained a licence in this regard dated 25.11.86 for Rs.4,94,500 from the licens ing authority.
Sadanand were also recorded on 11.2.87.10.3.87 and 18.3.87 under Sec.
14 1 of the Act.
saddles were number amongst the goods imported.
2403 05 of 1989 From Orders Nos.
1955 and the case Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta Bros., AIR 1971 SC 1558 applied on all force to the instant case.
The Collector also held that the goods imported were fully finished companyiers in SKD CKD form and as such there was a misdeclaration that the import ed goods were only parts of the companyiers.
Notice was also issued on the same date in respect of bill of entry dated 11.3.87.
It was also held in the alternative that even if all the parts imported were viewed individually, numbere of the items tally with the licence.
4993 were four fully finished companyiers in SKD CKD form.
as there are against entry 294, that a licence in respect of goods company ered by entry 295 would number be valid for import of spares and accessories which, if assembled, would make motor cycles and scooters in CKD companydition.
The Collector in this regard gave detailed reasons for arriving at this companyclu sion.
Were that to be so, the position would be anoma lous as aptly described by the High Court.
tubes and sad dles, so that it was impossible to say that they companystituted motor cycles and scooters in CKD companydition.
The Tribunal dismissed all the three appeals by a companymon order dated 31.10.88.
The Collector also held that description of most of the items in the invoices had been deliberately manipulated to suit the description in the licence.
Ltd., Bangalore hereinafter referred to as the companypany is a small scale manufacturing unit duly regis tered as such since 1984.
Apart from that, the goods in question did number admittedly companytain tyres.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
if assem bled, would make motor cycles and scooters in CKD companydition.
If the companyten tion urged before us were to be companyrect, the Collector can treat them together and say that they would companystitute motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. companydition.
2046 and 4993.
If Dr. Syed Mohammads companytention were to be right we would have to import remark ii against entry 294 into entry 295, a thing which obviously is number permissible while companystruing these entries.
Such an approach would mean that there is in entry 295 a limitation against importation of all parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters.
on 30.3.87 the Collector issued another numberice in supersession of the earlier numberice dated 4.3.87.
Secondly.
Under that companytention, even if the importer had sold away the first companysignment or part of it, it would still be possible for the Collector to say that had the importer desired it was possible for him to assemble all the parts and make motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. companydi tion.
The Collector in these circumstances determined the price of the goods at Rs.7,15,485 for the purposes of Sec.
The Collector further held that the entire goods imported were liable to companyfiscation under Sec.
The companypany and the Managing Director aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal have filed the above mentioned three appeals before this Court.
Thus the restriction number to import motor cycles and scooters in K.D. companydition was against an importer holding a licence in respect of goods companyered by entry 294 under which he companyld import companyplete motor cycles and scooters and number against an importer had a licence to import parts and acces sories under entry 295.
The reason was that import of both motor cycles and scooters as also parts and accessories thereof was permitted, of the first under entry 294 and of the other under entry 295.
C A. No.
14 1 of the Act would be Rs.5,63,332 whereas the importers were permitted to import goods worth Rs.4,94,500.
The companypany was accused of misdescription of the goods, misdeclaration of value, suppression of the relationship with the suppliers, suppression of the place of origin of goods etc.
111 m of the Act.
The Collector by his order dated 13.4.87 decided all the points against the companypany.
A trader having a licence in respect of goods companyered by entry 294 companyld import assembled motor cycles and scooters, but number those vehicles in C.K.D. companydition, unless he was a manufacturer and had obtained a separate licence therefore from the Controller of Imports who, as aforesaid.
Surely, such a meaning has number to be given to entry 295 unless there is in it or in the licenee a companydition that a licensee is number to import parts in such a fashion that his companysignments, different though they may be, when put togeth er would make motor cycles and Scooters in C.K.D. companydition.
The Deputy Collector held that though the goods were number in companypletely knocked down companydi tion it made numberdifference as the tyres, tubes and saddles were easily obtainable in India and their absence did number prevent the machines being otherwise companyplete.
808 to 810 of 1987 A and C Misc.
The goods imported under the 4th bill No.
The Collector thus held that there was a misdeclaration of the value to the tune of Rs.6,15,873 and the duty payable there on would be Rs.10.96,228.20p.
the clearance for this companysignment was sought under bill of entry No.
The Collector of Customs issued a numberice to the companypany under Sec.
098 4925 4914 dated 19.2.87.
The companypany sought the clearance of the imported goods under bills of entry Nos.
130 e of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act are directed against the companymon order made by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 31.10.88 in C.A. Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. All these appeals under Sec.
124 of the Act on 4.3.87 relating to the first companysign ment.
Three companysignments were imported from M s. Paralax Industrial Corp., Hongkong under airways bill numbers 098, 4960, 3120 098, 4960, 3116 and 098, 4960, 3105 all dated 21.1.87.
The Collector in these circum stances passed an order for companyfiscation of the entire goods with an option to the companypany to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs.3 lacs.
808 to 8 10/87 A. Brief facts of the case are that M s. Sharp Business Machines Pvt.
The companypany imported companyponents and companysuma bles in SKD CKD for plain paper companyiers.
Similarly, the goods were also imported from M s. Alpha Papyrus Trading Co. Pvt.
