TMI Blog1981 (7) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders, loud-speakers, casset tape cartridges. They have been carrying on this business and manufacturing activities for the last 20 years. The petitioners are also registered as Small Scale Industrial Unit with the appropriate authorities in the State of Karnataka. 2. It is asserted by the firm that one of the essential components of either a tape-recorder or the transistors that are manufactured by the petitioners is an item known as volume control. The said item of component is an imported item. The petitioner-firm imported in all 15,000 of these components which are manufactured at Japan. The firm had placed its order well before 1-12-1980 and a firm order had been placed by the firm before 1-12-1980. The said consignment arrived at B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm under Air Way Bill No. 098-3098-6410 produced as Annexure C to the petition consisting of five packets. This Court issued emergent notice regarding rule on 26-2-1981. On 3-4-1981 respondents entered appearance and took time. On 10th April, 1981, an order was made by this Court permitting the respondents to proceed under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in as much as proceedings thereunder had been commenced after the filing of the petition, by the Additional Collector, subject, however, to liberty being reserved to the petitioner-firm to seek appropriate redress in this Court if the adjudication proceedings under Section 124 of the Act went against it by suitably amending the petition and rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supportable inasmuch as there was no notification issued by the Government of India under Section 11 of the Act imposing that as an additional condition in the import licence. That decision has been affirmed in writ appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In the result, so far as the second of the grievances in issue is concerned, it has already been decided against the respondents. If impediment is not there, the firm is entitled to the release of five parcels mentioned in Annexure C to the petition and hence a writ of mandamus is liable to be issued against the respondents for release of the same. 6. The only impediment that remains, I can see is the order of confiscation at Annexure I to the petition passed by the 3rd respondent-Additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t circumstance, law declared by this Court was binding on the 3rd respondent-Additional Collector. It is not proper for an officer of that rank: in the Revenue to ignore that ruling after being aware of it and by independent reasoning of his own to come to the conclusion that there was violation of the conditions imposed under Section 11 of the Act when the very decision in the said writ petition was that the condition imposing the requirement of the production of approved phased production programme was not legally enforceable condition under Section 11 of the Act. This should not be encouraged. In fact, there is not even an attempt to distinguish that decision, even where is not permissible. Nothing more need be said about this than to ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
