TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have been imported through the concerned canalising agency, viz. SAIL and not directly by the importers as they had done. 2. Appearing before us for the appellants, Shri D.N. Mehta submitted that the appellants were manufacturers of engine valves from about 1965 onwards. For this purpose, they had to import alloy steel of a particular composition. They were regularly issued import licences for this purpose. The steel which they imported had chromium content of about 20.6%. According to the IS1 Specification for steel for valves for Internal Combustion Engines (IS : 7494: 1981) the steel to be used had to contain 20 to 20% chromium. 3. Action has been taken against the appellants on the ground that the steel imported by them was st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtation made in August, 1982 against two import licences issued for periods prior to 1982-83 and subsequently revalidated. At the time of revalidation an endorsement had been added that import of banned and canalised items would not be allowed during the revalidated period. Appendix 8 of the ITC policy for 1982-83 contained a list, of canalised goods, one of which was bars etc. of stainless/heat resisting steel. This was not a new provision and there was a similar provision in the ITC policy relating to previous licensing periods. However, the ITC policy for 1982-83 for the first time incorporated a specific definition of stainless steel. This was in para 219(v), where it was laid down that any steel containing over 12% of chromium would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not alloy steel for the purpose of the import licence. 6. Finally, Shri Mehta submitted that even if the Customs authorities found that the goods had to be considered as stainless steel in terms of the ITC policy for 1982-83 and therefore as a canalised item, the confiscation of the goods with a fine of ₹ 1,00,000/-was not justified. He submitted that since the goods were required for an essential purpose (according to him this particular steel was needed for the manufacture of engine valves for supply to the Indian Railways and the appellants had been regularly receiving licences for the import of such steel, there was no question of their not being allowed a supply of such material. If such steel was to be treated as canalised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted period. The imports had actually been made during 1982-83 and were accordingly governed by the ITC policy then in force. In Appendix 8 of that policy, Item 63 laid down that among other things, bars and rods of stainless/heat resisting steels of all grades were canalised through SAIL. Further, para 219(v) in chapter 21, Clarification and interpretation of the policy, it was specifically stated that any steel containing 12% or more chromium with or without other alloying elements would be covered under the description Stainless/heat resisting steel. In view of this specific provision in the relevant ITC policy, the goods imported by the appellants were clearly stainless steel and were canalised items which could only be imported throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icensing periods, the import of stainless steel bars was canalised but import had nevertheless been allowed by the Customs authorities. In fact an objection on this ground was raised in 1981 but subsequently withdrawn. Again, it is not denied that the Customs authorities had allowed even in this very case the benefit of exemption Notification No. 153/82, dated 18-5-1982, for alloy steels used in the manufacture of engine valves. In other words, despite the well-known definition of stainless steel which was clearly applicable to goods such as those imported on this occasion, the Customs authorities had been treating them as alloy steel. 11. There is no doubt that since the goods fell within the scope of stainless steel which were canalise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importation of such material earlier even though under the licensing policy for the earlier periods, stainless steel was a canalised item. Even during the period under consideration the Customs Authorities treated the goods as alloy steel for the purpose of the exemption notification. In the light of all these facts, and the judicial decisions referred to by Shri Mehta, we find that there is considerable weight in his contention that penal action should not have been taken in this case and that at most a warning could have been given. As already observed, even the Additional Collector recorded that a lenient view was being taken, but went on to impose a fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- which in the circumstances cannot be considered at all len ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
