NEW VEDIO LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri T.R. Malik, SDR and perused the papers.

(2.) APPELLANTS are engaged in the manufacture of TV Projectors and allied equipments. They imported projection T.V. picture tubes from a manufacturer in USA. According to them, during the warranty period certain number of picture tubes were replaced free of cost as per the terms of the contract and when replaced items were imported, appellants submitted Bill of Entry showing only the freight charges on the ground that they were not liable to pay duty on the value of the picture tubes. Notice was issued to show cause why duty should not be imposed on the value of imported goods also. The notice was resisted by the appellants. However, the Additional Collector passed the impugned order holding it to be a case of mis -declaration and directing duty to be paid on the value of goods imported, confiscating the goods under Section lll(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 but permitted redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/ -. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 7,500/ -under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) WHENEVER dutiable goods are imported at any port, the goods have to be assessed, valued and duty levied and paid for clearance. This is so irrespective of the fact that goods imported are original equipment or replacement parts. Neither Section 12 or 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 nor the scheme of the provisions therein indicate any exception to this normal rule in the case of replacement parts. The fact that parts said to be in replacement of the parts sent originally on which duty had been paid, can have no bearing on the situation. We, therefore, reject the contention that duty was not payable on the value of the goods imported. However, in the circumstances, appellants are entitled to relief in the matter of redemption fine and penalty.