N.V. Ramana JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The Appellant herein is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court has refused to allow the Appellant import of Web Printing Machine on concessional rate of custom duty. The Appellant had endeavored to avail the concessional rate of custom duty on the import of the aforesaid machine under Open General Allowance (for short, 'OGL') with the aid of Notification No. 114/80-CUS, dated 19.06.1980. The High Court has held that the said Notification is not applicable in the instant case as the Appellant has not been able to satisfy one particular eligibility condition contained therein. To put it pithily, one of the conditions needs to be satisfied to avail the concessional rate of duty @ 35% ad valorem under the aforesaid Notification is that the machine is having output of 30,000 or more copies per hour. Whereas the Appellant contends that the machine in question churned out 36,000 copies per hour, the High Court has found it otherwise. As per the High Court the output of the machine was 25,000 copies per hour, which was reflected in the leaflet of the manufacturer of the machine, which leaflet was filed along with Bill of Entry.
2. In order to find out the details of the factual background under which the aforesaid issue has cropped up, let us traverse through the facts in some more details.
3. The Appellant herein had imported one printing machine of make 'Harris Graphic V-15H Model' which arrived at Mumbai airport on 24.10.1987. Custom house agent of the Appellant filed Bill of Entry for Home Consumption under OGL on 13.11.1987 and claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 114/80-CUS.
4. On 26.11.1987, the Appraiser of Customs House, Bombay issued a query memo with regard to the printing capacity of the imported machine which had been shown in the import invoice as 36,000 copies per hour, but was shown as 25,000 in the leaflet furnished along with the Bill of Entry. Some other queries were also raised. The Appellant answered the issue on 21.01.1988.
5. Having not been satisfied with the reply furnished by the Appellant, the customs authorities directed it to warehouse the goods Under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), after depositing the admitted customs duty. Accordingly, the imported machine was warehoused.
6. Thereafter, ........