1984 (7) TMI 402 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refusal to release imported goods.
2. Validity and interpretation of import licenses.
3. Canalisation of goods.
4. Revalidation and restrictions of import licenses.
5. Jurisdiction and authority of customs officials.
6. Compliance with import policies and amendments.
7. Appeal and review procedures within customs authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refusal to Release Imported Goods:
The petitioner challenged the refusal of the respondents to release imported goods (1,500 kgs. of Amoxycillin Trihydrate) for home consumption under a valid licence. Despite submitting the Bill of Entry and paying the proportionate customs duty for part of the goods, the customs authorities withheld the remaining goods without assigning reasons.

2. Validity and Interpretation of Import Licenses:
The import licence in question was issued on 14th March 1980 and revalidated on 15th June 1982. The licence allowed the import of items listed in Appendices 5 & 7, excluding items in Appendix 26, under the Import Policy of 1979-80. The licence was valid for the import of raw materials and components placed on Open General Licence for Actual Users (Industrial).

3. Canalisation of Goods:
The customs authorities argued that the goods were canalised items, which could only be imported by the State Trading Corporation of India. However, the court found that Amoxycillin Trihydrate was not a canalised item under the 1979-80 policy and was only canalised on 16th October 1981. Thus, the import of Amoxycillin Trihydrate was permissible under the Open General Licence.

4. Revalidation and Restrictions of Import Licenses:
The revalidation of the licence was subject to the provisions of the Import Policy of 1982-83, specifically paras 231(1), 231(2), and 231(4). However, para 231(3), which restricts the import of items no longer under Open General Licence, was not applicable. Therefore, the import of Amoxycillin Trihydrate, which was not a canalised item during the original licence period, remained valid.

5. Jurisdiction and Authority of Customs Officials:
The court emphasized that the decision taken by the then Collector of Customs on 27th December 1982 to accept the licence and release the goods could not be reviewed by the present Collector. The present Collector's attempt to withhold the goods and seek an appeal was beyond his authority, as the original order had not been set aside by an appellate tribunal.

6. Compliance with Import Policies and Amendments:
The court held that a licence issued during a policy period is governed by that policy and any amendments made after the issuance of the licence do not affect its validity. The customs authorities were bound to release the goods as they were imported within the validity period of the licence and in compliance with the relevant import policies.

7. Appeal and Review Procedures within Customs Authorities:
The court noted that the customs authorities' refusal to release the goods was based on a change of opinion rather than any new legal basis. The Collector's decision to seek an appeal was time-barred, and the goods should not be withheld pending such an appeal. The court directed the respondents to release the goods forthwith upon payment of the already assessed duty.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the respondents had no jurisdiction to withhold the delivery of the goods. The customs authorities were directed to release the goods to the petitioner immediately upon payment of the assessed duty. The court emphasized that the import policies and the original licence conditions must be adhered to, and any subsequent amendments or changes in opinion by customs officials could not retroactively affect the validity of the licence.