TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd allowed the goods to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also levied. 2. Shri Patel, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants pleaded that he is aware that in similar case this Bench of the Tribunal in Order No. 554/1989 in the case of M/s. Ishwamurti and M/s. Equipment Sales Corporation v. Collector of Customs, Madras has held against the appellants and the matter is covered by this order. He has pleaded that there is a clarification from the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi which has been sent to all the Collectorates, under which disposable Syringes imported and pending clearances were allowed to be cleared under OGL, vide Boards letter F. No. 478/63/87-Cus-VII dated 2 December, 1987 and their clarification was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. The Board has stated in the said letter as under: I am directed to enclose herewith a copy of letter No. DO 48/1503/85-86/IPC/4277 dated 29th October, 1987 received from the Office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, on the above subject for your information and necessary action. You may allow clearance of pending consignments of disposable s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, dated 2-12-1987. 3. Shri K.K. Bhatia, the learned SDR for the Department pleaded that this Bench of the Tribunal as also the Special Bench in their order reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 644 have held that Syringes imported were not covered by Entry No. 48(b) of List 6 of Appendix 6, and therefore the question of setting aside the order of confiscation does not arise. He has pleaded that the ITC policy, as held by this Bench, does not permit import of hypodermic disposable syringes. He has pleaded that this Bench of the Tribunal examined as to the scope of the two conflicting Serial Numbers as mentioned above and clearly held that import of hypodermic disposable syringes would require a licence. 4. We observe that this Bench of the Tribunal had examined at length the question of importation of hypodermic disposable syringes under OGL and taken note of the clarification issued by the Director General Health Services and other authorities and after taking all these factors into consideration came to the conclusion that hypodermic disposable syringes imported by the appellants should be covered by Serial No. 521 of Appendix 3, Part A of the list of Limited Permissible items and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hardly any hypodermic syringe which cannot be used for limited dentistry work of injecting anesthesia and hence covered by the exception as pleaded. It is settled principle of law as mentioned above that statutory entries have to be read in a manner and interpreted in such a way that these do not make any portion or part thereof as redundant. In the light of the above the entries in the OGL Appendix 6, List 6, Sl. No. 48 and the entry at Serial No. 521, Appendix 3, Part A in the Policy Book have to be read in a harmonious manner to effectuate the purpose of Import Export Policy. It is seen that import under OGL is allowed in respect of specified categories of dental instruments and appliances and, therefore, for any import under OGL the items have to be such as are for recognised dental use primarily. It is seen that the needles allowed under Sl. No. 48 are of specialised type. On a reading of Entry 48 as a whole, it is seen that this specialised type of needles allowed for import can be used only on specialised type of syringes and, therefore, it cannot be that syringes allowed for import are of general use, while needles imported are of specialised type. In view of this and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue was posed before the Director General of Health Services. In view of what we have held above, we hold that the hypodermic syringes imported by the appellants are not covered for import under OGL and the same are, therefore, liable to confiscation for having been imported without the authority of an import licence as required under law". 5. The only new point the appellants put forth is the clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on 2 December, 1987 under which directions to the Collectors to allow clearance of the pending consignments of disposable syringes were issued in view of the letter received by the Board from the office of the JCCI E, New Delhi. This letter of the JCCI E reproduced in the communication addressed to the Collectors states It was clarified at the meeting that disposable syringes for dental application can also be used for other medical purposes . Further it also states In the light of the above, the question of transferring all types of disposable syringes to OGL is under consideration . It is observed that this letter does not state that disposable syringes were covered under OGL. All that is stated is that the dispos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re confiscated earlier, they had gone ahead with the import of the present consignment relying upon the clarification issued by the Director General of Health Services. In this connection, it may be mentioned that we have held in our Order No. 554/1989 dated 12-7-1989 that Director General Health Services is not the competent authority to give opinion in the matter of interpretation of Import Export Policy. The appellants having been penalised earlier for the same offence and having repeated the same offence cannot make any claim for reduction in the quantum of redemption fine. No case has also been made out on any other ground that the redemption fine is excessive. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we while upholding the order of confiscation, also reject the appellants plea for reduction in the quantum of redemption fine. The penalty levied under the impugned order in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be excessive and we uphold the same. The appeal is accordingly rejected. 6. [Order per : S. Kalyanam, Member (J)]. -I have gone through the order proposed by my learned brother and since I feel that in the peculiar facts and circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note in this context that the Collector of Customs, Madras, the very same authority who has passed the order now appealed against has, in the communication of the Board extracted above, endorsed as under :- Important/AC Gr. 5/Please take action is terms of this clarification. Sd/-14-DEC 1987" 11. The communication received from the Office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports Exports, New Delhi reads as under : Dear Shri Solanki, Please refer to this office O.M. No. 48(1503)/85-88/IPC/3563 dated 18th September, 1987 forwarding therewith a letter received from Shri Ganshyam Singh, M.P. regarding import policy in respect of disposable syringes. 2. The matter was discussed in a meeting on 20th October, 1987 where representatives of DGHS, DGTD and your Department were also present. It was clarified at the meeting that disposable syringes for dental application can also be used for other medical purposes. 3. In the light of above, the question of transferring all types of disposable syringes to OGL is under consideration. In the meantime, customs may consider allowing clearance of all consignments of disposable syringes which are capable of being used for dental a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence of the people in the functioning of the administration and that quasi-judicial authorities should ensure fair and equal treatment to all, is indeed a pious judicial platitude that needs no emphasis. 15. When the Tribunal passed the Order No. 554/89 dated 12-7-1989, the above important and relevant pieces of evidence and factual information were admittedly not available. In this context, the observations of the West Bengal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Trident Agencies v. Collector of Customs [reported in 1989 (45) E.L.T. 116] extracted hereunder are apposite: .......Above all, the subsequent conduct of the Customs House in clearing the identical goods without raising any objection again support the importers contention that the goods imported by them are not drugs and were not canalised during the policy AM-83. It is not in a single instance the objection was not taken. It was in respect of series of imports. Having regard to the course of conduct of the Customs, even if the goods are treated as canalised item there was no justification to impose any fine......" 16. The records show that during the pendency of the appeal after the learned Counsel for the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector of Customs. (3) 1987 (30) E.L.T. 345 (Cal.) - Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Mitsuny Electronic Works. The learned Advocate submitted that as can be seen from Member (Technical) s order the appellants cited the judgment in Trident Agencies v. Collector of Customs, 1989 (45) E.L.T. 116 (Tribunal) but while the learned Member (Judicial) followed the ratio of the said judgment, the learned Member (Technical) totally ignored the ratio. Shri Patel submitted that as, consequent on the Board s instructions, the Custom House has been releasing all similar consignments under OGL, I should agree with the order of the learned Member (Judicial) to remand the matter to the Customs Department. 19. Shri Vedantham, the learned Departmental Representative, submitted that in view of all the documents placed before the Bench and in view of the instructions issued by the Board the matter may be remanded as held by Member (Judicial). 20. I have considered the submissions of both sides. I am aware that in similar matters where Syringes were imported the Tribunal has taken a decision that these were not entitled to OGL. Those imports related to a period prior to the importer s prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
