TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2009 dated 14-1-2005 added a new paragraph 4.4.6 to the Hand Book of Procedure Volume 1, inter alia providing as under : Items reserved for imports by State Trading Enterprises cannot be imported against advance licence. However those items can be procured from State Trading Enterprises against ARO issued to advance licence holder. 2. It is the appellant s say that vide letter dated 22-2-2005 they sought a clarification from Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) regarding the documentation required for import of coconut oil through State Trading Corporation against AROs. In the said letter, they had specifically set out the arrangement proposed to the State Trading Corporation and sought confirmation from the Commissioner of Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 21-7-2005 clarified that as Marico Industries Ltd. has obtained AROs against advance licence, they are required to procure coconut oil from the State Trading Corporation of India, Mumbai and not through direct import. On receipt of this letter, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging unauthorized import of the goods as instead of procuring the goods from State Trading Corporation, Mumbai, the goods were directly imported by the appellant. 5. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner, who held the goods valued at Rs. 1,39,48,735/- liable to confiscation for violation of policy restrictions under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1.20 cror ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le basis in stead of procuring the same through State Trading Corporation, the canalizing agency. It was submitted that this finding is factually wrong in view of the fact that the bill of lading and the invoice issued by the overseas suppliers were in the name of State Trading Corporation and after procurement of the same from State Trading Corporation, they filed bill of entry for clearance only. 8. It was further submitted that without admitting but presuming that even if the sale was on a high sea sale basis, since the policy was amended in June, 2005 before import of their goods to allow clearance on high sea sale basis, the benefit of the same should have been allowed to them and in support thereof he referred to the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be treated as directly by M/s Marico Industries Ltd. Any changes in the policy become effective from the date of issue of public notice and not before that. Since in the present case, the shipment was prior to date of amendment in the policy, the same was not available to the appellants. As regards quantum of redemption fine, it was submitted that the appellants have in their ground of appeal never disputed the same. 10. We have considered the submissions. 11. We find that in the present case, as per the policy at the prevailing time the goods could have been procured from M/s State Trading Corporation at Mumbai only and the initial import should have been that of State Trading Corporation. However, there have been some procedural lacu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
