TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Import Trade Control Policy for the year 1973-74. 3. The petitioners in the year 1974 had imported 8 consignments of synthetic resin polyester resin chips (semi dull) from Japan. These imports were effected under bills of entry dated March 11, 1974 to October 31, 1974, of which details are given in para 3 of the petition. The licences in respect of these import items had been issued in favour of Actual Users (Registered Exporters) and they have been transferred in the name of petitioners under sub-clause 5(3)(i) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, served show cause notices in respect of these eight consignments under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, objecting to the import of these products on the basis of the aforesaid licences on the ground that those licences did not cover the imported products. The goods were confiscated under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Imports Exports (Control) Act, 1947, subject to redemption on payment of fine. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, also imposed on the petitioners penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, the details of which are furnished in para 5 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejecting the appeals has not been placed on the record. The revisional authority while agreeing with the findings of the lower authorities that the products imported by the petitioners were not covered by the licences issued, however, did take into consideration the fact that there has been a practice being followed by the Customs authorities in allowing the products of the type in question under the import licences granted for import of synthetic resin without correlating it with the export product mentioned in the licences and the revisional authority went on to grant same relief in the redemption fine and the penalties. The revisional authority did not examine the implications of the said public notices of 1974 by which the directions had been given to the Customs authorities to clear such products as before if orders had been placed for import of such products on the basis of such like import licences before the issuance of this public notice. A perusal of the order of the Collector and also of the revisional authority shows that much stress has been laid before the said authorities that the words "synthetic resin" would cover the goods in question and once the export house lik ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court has not been challenged by filing any appeal in the Supreme Court. So, It will show that the Union of India has accepted the verdict given in that particular judgment. The public notice dated September 18, 1974, (Annexure IX) reads as follows: "Under the Import Policy in force 'Synthetic resins' is one of the licensable A items. This items is required as raw materials in Paints, Adhesives, Plastic Goods and Surface Coating Industries. It is hereby clarified that import licences issued for this items are not valid for the Import of Polyamide resins, Polyester resins and Polyester chips of textile grade which are required in the manufacture of nylon fibre/filament and Polyester fibre/filament." 5. The other circular issued by the Government of India of the same date (copy Annexure X) has been sent to all Collector of Customs of which subject is the same as in the public notice and it was mentioned that some parties, having import licences for synthetic resins, have been importing polyamide resins, polyester resins or polyester chips against such licences and strictly speaking it may not have been possible for the Customs to treat such imports as unauthorised and, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viously the rights flowing from amended Fundamental Rule 56 were to be given effect to and not anything said in the memorandum. Such is not the case here. The public notice and the circular in question were never modified or changed at any time, so they have to be considered binding on the parties. It could not be left to the discretion of the different Collectors of Customs either to follow the said circular or not to follow the said circular. The said discretion if had been given it would have been completely arbitrary. In case they had exercised discretion in favour of one party and not in favour of the similarly placed other, such act of the Collector of Customs could have been struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to M/s. Bharat Barrel Drum Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs, Bombay Another, AIR 1971 SC 704, One of the points which arose for decision in this case was as to whether a particular public notice could operate retrospectively or is to be deemed to come into operation prospectively? On seeing the wordings of the particular public notice, the Supreme Court held that it did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
