9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants have preferred their present appeal. 2. Factual backdrop : The appellants said to be the manufacturers of Ayurvedic and Unani medicines imported from Karachi poppy seeds valued at Rs. 1, 54, 000/- under supplier's invoice dated 28-8-1986 and claimed clearance of the goods under OGL Appendix 6 List 8 Serial No. 1 of the Import Policy for AM 1985-88. Since the import of the subject goods was covered under entry No. 121 of Appendix 2 Part B of AM 1985-88 policy and for the clearance of which a specific Import Licence/CCP was required the appellants were asked to produce the valid Import Licence/CCP to cover the import of the subject goods. However, the appellants did not produce the valid Import Licence/CCP and inter alia vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that no Public Notice had been issued stating that import of poppy seeds would no longer be allowed under OGL. At the fag end of the arguments he also submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case there was no justification for either confiscating the goods or for imposing the penalty and at the most the appellants would have been cautioned to be careful in future. He also made an issue that in the somewhat similar circumstances redemption fine of Rs. 20, 000/- was imposed on one M/s. Uni Pharma India, Delhi for illegal importation of Khas Khas valued at Rs. 77852.50 and no penalty was imposed by the Dy. Collector of Customs vide his Order-in-Original No. 41/86 dated 24-10-1986. To bolster his submissions he cited the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial in the manufacture of Ayurvedic and Unani medicines, the import of the subject goods was permissible under OGL vide Appendix 6, List 8, Serial No. 1 of AM 1985-88, cannot be accepted. It was not disputed before us that the import of consumer item of agricultural origin was not permissible in terms of Serial No. 121 of Appendix 2 Part B of Import and Export Policy, AM 1985-88. It was also not disputed before us that the subject goods namely poppy seeds were of agricultural origin. What was contended before us was that since the appellants imported the poppy seeds to be used as raw-material in the manufacture of Ayurvedic and Unani drugs the same was permissible under OGL, Appendix 6, List 8, Serial No. 1 of AM 1985-88. After giving our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of interpretation of the Import and Export Policy, AM 1985-88 is involved. No authority or case law was cited by the learned Consultant in support of his contention that Public Notice is required in such case. Moreover it was not argued before us that the said letter No. 50/1/1984-85/IPC dated 25-6-1986 whereby the C.C.I. & E, New Delhi clarified that the Khas Khas poppy seeds is a consumer Item of agricultural origin and as such, the import is not allowed in terms of Sl. No. 121 of Appendix 2 Part B of Import and Export Policy, AM 1985-88 was marked "secret". In other words it was an open letter clarifying the position issued by the C.C.I. & E., New Delhi. It is also significant to note that the appellants were made aware of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the issuance of the said clarification the appellants opened their letter of credit No. NICW-2799, dated 2-8-1986 and it is only after the opening of the said letter of credit that the goods were shipped under Invoice dated 28-8-1986, though it was contended by the appellants that the sale contract was made on 7-6-1986. Under these circumstances the contention of the learned Consultant that the appellants acted bonafidely cannot be accepted. The only other argument of the learned Consultant that since earlier the imported poppy seeds were released without any penal action and therefore, in view of this practice confiscation or redemption fine or penalty was not called for, cannot be accepted. The case law cited by the learned Consultant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants of that case that the import of poppy seeds in terms of the OGL would not be available further and therefore, imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 10, 000/- either was not called for or excessive, however does not assist the appellants at all. In the instant case the said Order No. 41/86 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs on 24-10-1986 whereas in the instant case the adjudication order was passed by the Collector himself on 15-10-1986. It appears from the copy of the said order passed by the Deputy Collector that the impugned order dated 15-10-1986 passed by the Collector was not in the knowledge of the Deputy Collector. Needless to say that what we are now concerned with is not disciplining t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
