MEKALA LAXMI NARASIMHA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ACC,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON hearing both sides I find that the issue is capable of being disposed off. The appeal itself is taken up for disposal on granting waiver of pre -deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/ -.

(2.) THE appellant imported PCI Display Control Cards and requested that these be detained for proper clearance. Later M/s. AMsoft Data Corporation requested for clearance of these cards to them. The Corporation is a 100% EoU. The importer was a partner thereof. It was claimed that the unit had already imported personal computers and the Cards were part of the same. The value of the Cards was assessed at Rs. 13,10,134/ -. The Commissioner adjudicated the case holding that the goods had to be treated as baggage goods. He dismissed the submission that the Cards were part of the computers in the absence of technical opinion. He observed that the paragraph 5.6 of the Exim Policy permitted importation of bona fide baggage goods alone and that trade goods could not be permitted importation in baggage. In this belief he confiscated the goods under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, permitted redemption on payment of fine and imposed penalty. Hence the appeal.

(3.) SHRI M.J. Nambiar, Consultant refers to the details of the EoU unit including the possession of the Importer -Exporter Code No. He shows that the computers were cleared under Notification No. 140/91 without payment of duty. He does not press the claim that the value of the Cards was included in the value of the computers earlier cleared but requests clearance of the Cards as cargo for the EoU.