Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 854 - AT - CustomsDFIA Scheme - Actual user condition - Benefit of exemption in notification no. 40/2006-Cus dated 1st May 2006 - - the impugned order finds that ‘float glass’ was not amenable to use in the manufacture of ‘finished leather from hide of cow/buffalo’, that the intent of the policy had been violated as the flexibility of importing alternative inputs, allowed in circular dated 24th March 2009, did not extend to goods that were not capable of being used in the industry, and that clarification dated 14th February 2002 on use of ‘float glass’ as ‘glazing glass’ stood withdrawn by the advisory of 15th January 2013. HELD THAT:- It is clear from the narration in the impugned order that the item permissible for import in the norms relating to ‘finished leather from hide of cow/buffalo’, as well as in the impugned licences, was ‘glazing glass’ and, in the former, continues to be so. It is also on record that the clarification of the Advance Licensing Committee issued in 2002 was withdrawn by the Norms Committee in 2013. The foundation of the impugned order is the attribution of retrospective effect to the subsequent withdrawal so as to render the impugned imports to be contrary to the list appended to the licence. With the description in the norms continuing to remain unamended, the deemed insertion of the specific description, embodied in the advisory of 2013, may not find ready acceptance. The adjudicating authority has appeared to stretch the proposition for retrospective application of withdrawal of clarification on the basis of cited decisions which, as we have pointed out, were made in an entirely different context. Furthermore, to permit any individual acting on deliberated decisions of an authorized body to be subject to any detriment subsequently is tantamount to incentivizing the irresponsible decision-making by designated authorities. Indubitably, passage of time and hindsight tend to promote wisdom and the perception of errors of the past, in the light of such wisdom, does not erase an assurance offered. If the test of validity for retrospective effect of notifications, it surely must be no less applicable to clarifications. Imports, if any, made against the impugned licences after issue of clarifications of 2013 are on a footing entirely different from those made before - The impugned order, thus, stands on weak foundations in penalizing past imports. Accordingly, the confiscation as well as imposition of penalties under section 112 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 fails. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|