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

1979 (6) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rt V of the Import Trade Control Policy Schedule from time to time. 2. Serial No. 65(1-4)(ii) is for import of cinema machinery including studio equipments and projection and also including sound recording apparatus for the production of cinema films. The petitioners were granted import licence bearing No. P/E/0193018 for the import of cinema machinery and parts thereof as per Appendix 31 of April, 1971 to March, 1972 policy. In pursuance of this licence, the petitioners placed an order with M/s. Osram, a Company in the West Germany for import of HQV lamps for spectroscopy which were necessary parts of Ultraviolet Film Identification Units of value of Rs. 17,046/- against the said import licence. The said lamps fall under Serial Nos. 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ustoms Act, 1962 read with section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The petitioners were given liberty under the provisions of section 125 of the Customs Act to pay a fine of Rs. 48,000/- and to clear the goods into town. According to the Deputy Collector, the provisions of interchangeability did not apply as the imported items did not figure as permissible items against Serial No. 38-A(c)/II of the Policy Book. 4. The petitioners carried an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. The petitioners made a specific case before the appellate authority that the goods imported are high pressure mercury vapour lamps which do not emit light and are not designed for such purposes. The petitioners stated that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e entertained. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the correctness and legality of the order passed by the three authorities below. 6. Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition invited my attention to item under Serial No. 65(1-4)(ii) of Section II appearing on page 94 of the Red Book. The entry opposite this item as regards the actual user is, that detailed licensing policy is given in Appendix 31. Appendix 31 appears at page 371 and entry No.20 which is Test Film and testing instruments other than banned types and Entry No. 33 which is Spare parts for all the above items, as also for items banned under List C. Mr. Joshi, thereafter invited .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rt the goods covered under Serial No. 38-A(c) of Section IV. 7. Mr. Joshi submitted that the show cause notice issued to the petitioners merely stated that the petitioners are not entitled to import the goods as the said goods required specific licences under Serial No. 38-A(c) of Part II. Mr. Joshi further submitted that the revisional authority made out a new case for the petitioners by holding that the item imported falls under Serial No. 38-A(f) of Section II. The learned Counsel is right in his submission that the revisional authority has made a new case which was not made known to the petitioners at the time of show cause notice. Mr. Joshi's contention that in view of the provisions of interchangeability, the petitioners were entitl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petitioners are limited only to item falling under Serial No. 38-A(c)/II. According to the learned Counsel for the department, this indicates that what is available under the principle of interchangeability was item under Section II of the Red Book appearing on page 61. The view propounded by the learned Counsel appears to have been adopted by the appellate authority but on the face of it, the submission is misconceived and will have to be rejected. A plain reading of note appearing on page 158 of the Red Book clearly indicates that what is interchangeable is the item appearing at Serial No. 38-A(c) of Part II of Section IV and it is the fallacy to suggest that Part II is not one under Section IV but Part II is really Section II itself .....

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