9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the import of stearin fatty acid was permissible under I.T.C. Order No.1/83 dated 15-4-1983 prior to 11-11-1983. 2. Whether the import of stearin fatty acid was permissible under I.T.C. Order No.1/83 dated 15-4-1983 after the issuance of Public Notice No.47/83 dated 11-11-1983. 3. Whether the relevant conditions of I.T.C. Order No.1/83 were fulfilled in each case. 4. Whether the confiscation of the goods and imposition of fine and penalty were justified in the facts and circumstances of each case. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Permissibility of Stearin Fatty Acid Import Under I.T.C. Order No.1/83 Prior to 11-11-1983 The Tribunal examined whether stearin fatty acid could be imported under Open General Licence (OGL) as per I.T.C. Order No.1/83 dated 15-4-1983. It was established that palm stearin fatty acid and palm fatty acid are distinct commodities. The Tribunal found substantial evidence, including government notifications and expert clarifications, supporting the distinct nature of stearin fatty acid. The Delhi High Court's judgment in Kaptan's Enterprises (AIR 1986 Delhi 221) was also cited, concluding that stearin fatty acid was permissible under OGL prior to 11-11-1983. Hence, the Tribunal held that the import of stearin fatty acid was permissible under I.T.C. Order No.1/83 prior to 11-11-1983. Issue 2: Effect of Public Notice No.47/83 on I.T.C. Order No.1/83 The Tribunal examined the impact of Public Notice No.47/83 dated 11-11-1983, which canalized the import of certain fatty acids through the State Trading Corporation. It was determined that a non-statutory public notice could not override a statutory order issued under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Tribunal relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments and the Delhi High Court's decision in Kaptan's Enterprises, which held that the public notice could not take away the right to import under a statutory order. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that stearin fatty acid could still be imported under OGL even after 11-11-1983, provided the conditions of I.T.C. Order No.1/83 were met. Issue 3: Fulfillment of Conditions Under I.T.C. Order No.1/83 The Tribunal analyzed whether the importers met the conditions of I.T.C. Order No.1/83, focusing on Condition No.26, which required that goods be shipped by certain dates and, in some cases, that irrevocable letters of credit be opened by 29-2-1984. The Tribunal found that in some cases, such as M/s Jayant Oil Mills and M/s Kusum Products Ltd., the conditions were fulfilled, making the importation valid. However, in other cases, where the letters of credit were not opened by the stipulated date, the importation was deemed unauthorized. Issue 4: Justification of Confiscation, Fine, and Penalty For cases where the conditions of I.T.C. Order No.1/83 were not met, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and the imposition of fines and penalties. It was noted that unauthorized importation was deliberate, and the appellants were aware of the mandatory requirements. The Tribunal confirmed that the amounts of redemption fine and penalty were not exorbitant and were within the statutory limits. The Tribunal also emphasized that the adjudicating officer need not record reasons for determining the quantum of fine and penalty as it is discretionary. Conclusion: - Appeals No.C-152/84-Cal, C-36/85-Cal, C-37/85-Cal, C-83/85-Cal, C-84/85-Cal, C-85/85-Cal, C-90/85-Cal, and C-91/85-Cal were dismissed, and the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Collector were confirmed. - Appeals No.C-24/85-Cal and C-129/85-Cal were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
|
