TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eciate the facts of the case and applied the case law erroneously. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has read the serial II of sensitive item in the Handbook of Procedures, 1992-97, Vol. II in part and not as a whole. To illustrate the Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the preamble to the List II of Sensitive List, Handbook of Procedures, Vol. II which reads, "In respect of the following items licence shall be issued with value restrictions as indicated against each, both under quantity based licence and value based licences". The rider to the entry 1 of the side list reads "itemwise value limit as indicated in the relevant norms". Evidently the rider to the entry is only a guiding factor for fixing the individual value. If the ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the licencing authority has itself laid down that necessary checks have to be carried out by the Customs with regard to sensitive items. This is evident from the condition 4 of the condition sheet attached to the said licence duly signed by the licensing authority. Therefore, it is well within the jurisdiction of the Customs authorities to ensure that conditions required for the clearance of sensitive items are fulfilled. So the facts of this case are distinguishable from the case law of M/s. Shivshankar Tilkakraj v. Union of India and others, 1987 (28) E.L.T. 342 (Bom). The Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly applied the case laws without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. It is required, under the EXIM Policy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, if there should be a restriction in respect of the usage by the licensee then the licensing authorities ought to have taken proper action in terms of the licencing regulations under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 along with its regulations. Without action being taken under the such regulations nobody can question the validity of the imports. This is what judgment of the Supreme Court has held in East India Commercial case - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 and Sampatraj Dugar case 1992 (58) E.L.T. 739. We are therefore of the view the approach of the department as contained in the appeal is not based on law. It is therefore rejected confirming the order passed by the Order-in-Appeal by the appellate authority. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
