Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1970 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1970 (2) TMI 53 - SC - CustomsWhether the learned single Judge was right in holding that there were two apparent errors of law in the Assistant Collector's order, in that, he had relied on (a) a warning in respect of the previous year's consignment, and (b) a restriction on future imports of similar goods to the extent of 15% of the face value mentioned in the licence? Held that:- In the absence of any proof that they were, the High Court obviously could not say that they were governed by the said clarification, and that, therefore, the goods did not fall under Entry 38A(e), as the Assistant Collector had ruled, or that there was any apparent error in that finding. It appears that except for relying on the said clarification no attempt was made at any time to establish that the goods were similar to those of the previous year's imports and therefore, could not be classified as auto-bulbs. The question of restriction to the extent of 15% arose only when Hazarimal relied upon the said clarification in his explanation to the show cause notice. It was, therefore, that the Assistant Collector in his order stated that even if the goods were covered by that clarification, only 15% of the value stated in that licence could be imported. It is thus difficult to see how the impugned order suffered from either of the two errors of law apparent on the record. he order stated that even if the clarification were to apply on the footing that the goods were similar to those of the previous year's import then the restriction of 15% import contained in the clarification would apply, and that, therefore, in either case the import could not be held valid. In view of such clear language in the impugned order the Division Bench cannot be said to have been in error as contended by Counsel. Appeal dismissed.
|