1983 (1) TMI 270 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of import policy regarding staple pins for industrial vs. stationery use
Validity of license to cover imported goods
Excessiveness of fine imposed by Deputy Collector
Applicability of established practice in Customs House
Validity of alternative license for clearance of consignment

Interpretation of Import Policy:
The Tribunal analyzed the import policy regarding staple pins, noting that the policy does not differentiate between staple pins for stationery and industrial use. The ban on staple pins under Appendices 3 and 4 of the policy book is absolute without any distinction of type or category. Despite the appellant's arguments and evidence regarding the industrial nature of the staple pins, the Tribunal held that the ban applies regardless of the specific use of the pins. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on a circular and established practice, emphasizing the clear prohibition on staple pins under the import policy.

Validity of License and Fine Imposed:
The Tribunal examined the validity of the appellant's license to cover the imported goods and found it invalid as it did not include staple pins, which were banned under the import policy. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's argument regarding the excessive fine imposed by the Deputy Collector, stating that the interpretation of the fine limit under the Customs Act was incorrect. The Tribunal clarified that the fine should be assessed based on the market price of goods of similar kind and quality at the time of import, not the market price of the imported goods themselves.

Applicability of Established Practice:
Regarding the appellant's claim of an established practice in the Customs House permitting the import of staple pins, the Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the appellants was insufficient to establish such a practice. The Tribunal highlighted that a single instance of clearance could not serve as a precedent, especially when the import policy clearly prohibited the import of staple pins.

Validity of Alternative License:
The Tribunal addressed the appellant's request to use an alternative license for the clearance of the consignment, concluding that the alternative license provided did not cover the import of staple pins. The Tribunal emphasized that since staple pins were absolutely banned under the import policy, the alternative license was not applicable for the clearance of the goods. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Deputy Collector of Customs, confirming the rejection of the appeal.