ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The appellant filed these two appeals against the two Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.
2. Common facts and common issues are involved in these appeals, hence being taken up together.
3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant was holder of advance licence and on the basis of the advance licence the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Book was issued to appellant permitting the appellant to import semi-finished bearings which were to be finished in India for the purpose of export.
4. The Appeal No. C/2529/90-B2 relates to three consignments and the two bills of entry. The description of the goods was given semi-finished bearings type P-I. But on examination these were found to be Glacier bearings in original packing in fully finished condition. Quality control slips were also found in the cartons. Therefore the goods were found to be misdeclared and also not to the description mentioned in the advance licence issued to the appellant.
5. In Appeal No. C/227/91-B2 relates to other consignment of the bearing imported by the appellant. In the bill of entry the goods were declared as semi-finished bearings and the clearance was claimed under notification 116/88 at nil rate of duty. On examination the goods were found to be fully finished bearings. Samples were taken for testing. During investigation it was found that goods were got cleared after making a false endorsement on the bill of entry under the signature of group appraiser.
6. During investigation it was found that no further manufacturing process was carried out on the imported bearings except oiling, greasing and repacking and at the time of applying for the advance licences, the appellant declared that the following operations are to be carried out on the semi-finished flanges in our bearing plant:
1. Ntckino
2. Nick Milling
3. Drilling
4. Grooving
5. Boring
6. Plating in copper/lead only
7. Joint face broaching
8. Final inspection
9. Oiling
10. Packing
7. The supporting manufacturer of the appellant admitted that only clearing by cloth, checking the lubricating holes for any blocks; greasing are done by them and thereafter the bearings were again packed. Apart from these processes nothing more were done on the imported bearings.
8. After adjudication impugned order were passed.
9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that goods now cleared under the valid import licence and after processing the finished goods were exported as per the conditions of the import licence. He submits that there is no evidence that the finished bearings were imported. He also submitted that certification issues by the IIT only points out that goods do not call for any substantial manufacture. The cross-examination of the export, whose opinion was relied, was not allowed.
10. In respect of Appeal No. C/227/91-B2 he submits that appellant has to do nothing with alleged forged certification on the Bill of Entry. He submits the goods were cleared through their C.H.A. He therefore submits that appeals be allowed.
11. Heard Shri A.K. Agrawal, SDR.
12. In these appeals the allegations against the appellant is that they made import of finished bearings instead of semi-finished bearings and misdeclared the goods at the time of import.
13. The contention of the appellant is that they were importing semi-finished bearings and after undertaking further processes to make them complete in finished form and thereafter these were exported.
14. The supporting manufacturer of the appellant admitted that only cleaning, greasing, checking the lubrication holes were undertaken by him. This facts is clear from the statement of Shri K.R. Baliga, Manager of supporting manufacturer.
15. At the time of applying for import licence the appellant mentioned that following processes are to be undertaken by them :
1. Ntckino
2. Nick Milling
3. Drilling
4. Grooving
5. Boring
6. Plating in copper/lead only
7. Joint face broaching
8. Final inspection
9. Oiling
10. Packing
16. During investigation it was found the supporting manufacturer had no facility to undertake these operations on the semi-finished bearings.
17. The goods imported were examined by the expert also and the opinion of the expert is that these are bearings in fully finished condition. Further letter dated 4-1-1989 written by the manufacturer shows that these goods require only inspection before final packing.
18. The appellants in reply to the summons issued submitted a certificate dated 24-12-1998 issued by Dr. Y.R. Ullas. Chartered Engineer and in this certificate, it was mentioned that the only process of cleaning with dry cloth, inspection of wall thickness, measuring of holes, greasing were carried out on the imported goods.
19. In view of above discussion, we find no infirmity in the findings in the impugned order that appellant made import of finished bearings and misdeclared these bearings as semi-finished bearings. Therefore the appeals are dismissed.