Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (11) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... signment was of crude palm kernel oil under 2 Bills of Entry each for a value of Rs. 5,96,578/-. The other consignment was of bulk crude stearin for the clearance of which six Bills of entry were filed totally valued at Rs. 66,84,352/-. These goods were canalised items according to the Import Policy of 1978-79 and in the 1985-88 policy. The clearance of the goods were claimed against additional licence issued to them as diamond exporter under para 176 of 1978-79 Import Policy as per Supreme Court order, dated 18-10-1985 for the clearance of the goods and in view of the Supreme Court judgment, dated 18-10-1985 wherein it was held that the additional licence issued to diamond exporters in para 176 of Import Policy 1979 will be valid for impor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... toms, who held that import was unauthorized and ordered its confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. He levied a fine in lieu of the confiscation of Rs. 4,50,000/- against each Bill of entry in the case of the import of crude palm kernel oil and he imposed a fine of Rs. 49,90,000/- as a total fine against the six Bills of entry, filed for the clearance of the goods. No penalty was imposed on the respondent in both these consignments. 2. In respect of the other consignment imported by respondent M/s. Everest Gem the Commissioner, for similar reasons, adjudicated the matter and imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs in lieu of confiscation and did not impose any penalty on the respondent. 3. Shri K.L. Ramteke, the learned DR for the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the learned counsel contended that the law came to be settled on the issue regarding the validity of additional licence for import of canalised item only by the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.O.I. v. Godrej Soap - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 465 wherein the Supreme Court had considered the earlier judgment in the case of Rajprakash Chemicals, and for the first time interpreted the expression, whether canalised or otherwise occurring in the earlier direction. The present adjudication orders have been passed subsequent to this judgment of the Supreme Court. The respondents, however, have placed orders for the goods earlier on 6-5-1986 and the import was in July 1986. The learned counsel refers to the adjudication order in one of the consignment No. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. The submissions have been carefully considered. In respect of the import of crude palm kernel oil and palm stearin, these goods were canalised items at the relevant time. There were more than one judgment of Supreme Court ending with the judgment in the case of Godrej Soap supra and the law came to be clearly laid down that the diamond exporters in terms of para 176 of Import Policy cannot utilize additional licence for the import of canalised items. It is also relevant that the adjudication of these two consignments has taken place subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Godrej Soaps. It is, further, noted that apparently the adjudicating authority had referred to the various clarification on the validity of additional licenc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der the significance of the words `whether canalised or otherwise mentioned in the order on 18-4-1985 because that point did not arise in that case before it. Therefore, in the light of fact that true and legally correct interpretation of the terms of the additional licences became available only subsequent to the import of these consignments, it cannot be stated that there was mala fide intention on the part of the respondents in importing the goods against the additional licences. In such a view of the matter, the fact that no penalty has been imposed by the Commissioner on the respondent has to be considered in the light of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hindustan Steel supra. The Supreme Court had held in that c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates