TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 25-11-1988 was issued, with the approval of the Department of Commerce, Colombo, Sri Lanka (Ceylon) dated 25-11-1988. The National Chamber of Commerce of Sri Lanka also issued a certificate of origin dated 25-11-1988 for the import of 60 bags Cloves Grade I weighing 5000 Kgs. and 2500 Kgs. Payments were to be made by means of Bill of Exchange for INRS 3,42,500/- and 1,71,250/-. The above consignment was shipped on board TTN-199 under Bill of Lading bearing No. G/04 and G/03, dated 25-11-1988, with an endorsement "Shipped on Board 25-11-1988". The goods arrived on 6-12-1988 vide IM. No. 433/6-12-1988. It is also the case of the petitioner that they have filed a Bill of Entry Nos. 52 and 53, dated 7-12-1988 through the Clearing Agents M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 5-3-1990 confiscated the goods and allowed the goods to be cleared on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- respectively. He also levied a personal penalty of Rs. 100/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The above order has been impugned in these writ petitions. 3. No counter has been filed in these two cases. 4. It has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Additional Collector of Customs is bad and he should have noted that the date of shipment is the sole criterion to judge the validity of the imports. The Bill of Lading was admittedly dated 25-11-1988 which was prior to Public Notice No. 82/88, dated 29-11-1988. It was further argued that the said notice w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India Gazette No. 152849/88, dated 3-3-1989. It has been argued that the authorities could have taken into consideration the date of which the notification was made available to the public. In these cases, notification was made available to the public on 7-12-1988 and hence the authorities are not right in relying upon the Gazette dated 29-11-1989 to say that the shipment was on 1-12-1988 even though it was on 25-11-1988. In this context, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decision in Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. [1998 (97) E.L.T. 388 (S.C.)] wherein it has been held that unless the Gazette containing the notification is made available to the public, the notification cannot be said to have been duly published. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
