TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m under the Import Policy 1985-88. The import was, thus, on the face of it unauthorised. Allow the appeal with costs, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and restore the order of the Collector Customs Calcutta confiscating the goods and giving an option to the respondent to get the goods released on payment of fine of ₹ 58,00,000/- (fifty eight lacs). - 5148 (NM) of 1990 - - - Dated:- 8-1-1992 - S. Ranganathan, Kuldip Singh and N.M. Kasliwal, JJ. [Judgment per : Kuldip Singh, J.]. - The respondent, Shashikant Company, had applied for the grant of Export House Certificate under the Import Policy 1978-79. The Certificate was denied on the ground that the respondent had not diversified its exports. Against the said or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cid oil which was a canalised item under the Import Policy 1985-88. The respondent entered into a contract dated May 5, 1986 with a Singapore firm for supply of 4000 M.T. of Palm acid oil. The invoice in respect of the said contract was dated September 1, 1986 and the respondent filed the Bill of entry on September 11, 1986. 3. The Collector Customs Calcutta by his order dated October 31, 1986, confiscated the goods on the ground that the import of Palm acid oil - a canalised item - was unauthorised. The respondent was, however, given the option to get the goods released on payment of a fine of ₹ 58,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation. 4. The appeal filed by the respondent before the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14, 1986 observed that clearance of canalised items against the additional licences was being unconditionally allowed. 6. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the respondent, having acted on the representation of the Departmental authorities, was justified in importing the canalised item. Thirdly the Tribunal relied on the judgment of this Court in B. Vijay Kumar v. Collector of Customs Civil Appeals Nos. 4445 4446 of 1988 decided on December 16, 1988 and granted relief to the respondent in similar terms. 7. This appeal before us is by the Union of India through Collector Customs Calcutta against the judgment of the Tribunal. 8. We have heard Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anil Divan, Senior Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Policy 1985-88, the items excluded are those enumerated in the corresponding Appendix 3 and Appendix 2 Part A of that Import Policy. That conclusion follows irresistibly on the analysis attempted by us and in the context in which the order was made. 9. This Court thus clarified that only such items could be imported under the additional licence as were permitted under the Import Policy 1978-79 and also at the time of import, which in the present case was the import policy 1985-88. Admittedly, the item imported by the respondent was a banned item under the Import Policy 1985-88. The import was, thus, on the face of it unauthorised. This Court in Raj Prakash's case, however, granted relief in the following terms, to those importers wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only such items could be imported by diamond exporters under the Additional Licences granted to them as could have been imported under the Import Policy 1978-79, the period during which the diamond exporters had applied for Export House Certificates and had been wrongfully refused, and were also importable under the Import Policy prevailing at the time of import, which in the present case is the Import Policy 1985-88. These were the items which had not been specifically banned under the prevalent Import Policy. The items had to pass through two tests. They should have been importable under the Import Policy 1978-79. They should also have been importable under the Import Policy 1985-88 in terms of the order dated April 18, 1985....... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Raj Prakash's case (supra) as well as Indo Afghan Chambers of Commerce's case (supra). No question of any restitution of rights arises. 13. There was no ambiguity in the order dated April 18, 1985 (Rajnikant's case). Assuming it needed clarification, the same was done by this Court on March 5, 1986 in Raj Prakash's case. The respondent entered into contract for the import of the item on May 5, 1986 much after the judgment in Raj Prakash's case. We are of the view that the Tribunal fell into grave error in accepting the plea of bona fide raised by the respondent and setting aside the order of the Collector. The opinions expressed by the officers in inter-departmental communications is of no consequence. In the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
