TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d steel items) other than those included in Appendices 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 15. The petitioner required the raw material called "pentahydroxy-methyl-N-N dimeth-ylamine naphthacendion carboxamide carbamide" which is known as tetracycline urea complex as an intermediate in the manufacture of the drug called tetracycline hydrochloride. According to the petitioner, the raw material is not a drug, but it is a drug intermediate used in the manufacture of the drug tetracycline hydrochloride. Appendix 9 in the Import Policy for 1982-83 provides that the items set out thereunder could be imported only by the canalising agency, i.e., the State Chemicals Pharmaceuticals Corporation of India Limited. Item 16 of the Policy under the heading "Drugs" is te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder "OGL" and, therefore, confiscated the same under 111(d) of the Customs Act. The Collector gave an option to the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 8,25,000 in lieu of confiscation and clear the goods for home consumption. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Collector before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, but the same ended in dismissal by an order dated January 6, 1984. 4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner approached this court by filing this petition on June 28, 1983 in respect of remaining 8 consignments. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents - to withdraw the show cause notices and to grant clearance of the consignments in question. The petition w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding of the Policy during the earlier period cannot be taken into account for granting relief to the petitioner. The learned counsel is un doubtedly right and it is necessary to examine whether there was any improper understanding in the earlier period. 7. The Appellate Tribunal has passed exhaustive order dealing with the issue and the finding is recorded that the item imported is not a canalised drug specified in Appendix 9 or its salt, or ester, or active ingredient. The tribunal recorded a clear-cut finding that active ingredient of any substance which is not a drug is not canalised under the relevant Import Policy. The Tribunal also found fault with the Collector in relying upon I.T.C. Circular dated January 3, 1983 and on the opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s recorded by the Tribunal and on which Shri Rege very strongly relied. On the findings recorded by the Tribunal that tetracycline urea complex is a different substance than the pure tetracycline and merely because tetracycline could be separated after a simple physical process, it cannot be concluded that the import of tetracycline urea complex fell within Appendix 9. In my judgment, the tribunal was clearly in error in holding that the imported item was not permissible as "OGL" item. 8. The perusal of the order of the tribunal indicates that the question was not free from doubt even according to the tribunal and, therefore, it is futile to suggest that the import was not in order. Shri Patel invited my attention to the Import Policy AM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
