9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of which is canalised through public sector agencies. Item 44 provides that import of tallow of any animal origin including mutton tallow was canalised through State Trading Corporation of India. 3.It is contended by the respondent that OGL item was imported against licence dated 29-6-1981 which was an impress licence issued to M/s. B. Arun Kumar and Co., Bombay under the import-export policy for the period 1981-82 and that respondent entered into a contract for import which was notorised on 6-6-1981. Subsequently, the written contract signed by the supplier was submitted to the New Bank of India for issuing letter of credit. However, as Bank refused the same and as on 3rd February, 1983 notice was issued by the supplier for cancellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act, 1962." 6.Aggrieved by the said order, respondents preferred Appeal No. C/247/84-C before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal held that the question involved was considered in detail by it in its earlier judgment in Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1990 (29) E.C.R. 321 (CEGAT SB-C)]. In the said decision, the Tribunal held that the right to import the goods under OGL is a statutory right and cannot be overruled by a public notice and that the import of Beef Tallow which ceased to be an OGL item when it was canalised by the public notice is governed by the Import Policy when the licence was issued and not by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 125 of the Act. Relevant part of Section 112 reads thus: - "Penalty for112. improper importation of goods, etc. — Any person, — (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) …… shall be liable.- (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees." 9.As against this, Section 125 empowers the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive an option to the owner or the person from whom goods are seized to pay fine in lieu of such confiscation for return of the goods and the fine is also limited up to the market price of the goods. Therefore, levy of fine in lieu of confiscation is in addition to levy of penalty imposable under Section 112. 11.Learned senior counsel Mr. Sanghi next contended that there was no bar on import of beef tallow by the respondent. This submission is without any substance as law on this issue is settled. This Court has taken a consistent view that once import of goods is canalised, it is not open to the holder of REP licence to import the goods which are canalised and that goods must be in conformity with the Import Policy at the time of import. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t at the time of Import. In the present case the import of a canalised item being made after amendment of the Policy by the public notice dated 11-11-1983, in a manner not permitted by the amended Policy, the appellants cannot claim to avoid the logical consequences of the import being made contrary to the Import Policy prevailing at the time of import of the goods..." 15.It is to be stated that the Tribunal relied upon its earlier decision by observing that the SLP against the said decision was dismissed by this Court summarily. But it is well settled law that in case where SLP is dismissed without assigning any reason, that order would not constitute a binding precedent. [Re: Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa [(1999) Supp. 4 SCR 302]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther, in the Import Policy for April 1981-March 1982 in Paragraph 2, it has been specifically stated that "any amendment to this policy which may become necessary in the course of the year will be notified by means of Public Notices issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, from time to time". Same thing is stated in Import-Export Policy of the year 1982-83. 19.In this view of the matter, it is apparent that respondent knowing fully well the import policy imported prohibited goods i.e. import of canalised item namely beef tallow and, therefore, the Collector was fully justified in imposing the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 20.In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
