1979 (6) TMI 44 - HC - Central Excise

Revision - Scope - Customs - Principles of interchangeability - Connotation of - Writ jurisdiction

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of import licences under Serial No. 65(1-4)(ii) and Serial No. 38-A(c)/II.
2. Confiscation of imported goods by Customs authorities.
3. Application of interchangeability principle in import policy.
4. Judicial review of orders passed by Customs authorities and revisional authority.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved the interpretation of import licences granted to a Private Limited Company and its shareholder for the import of cinema machinery and parts under Serial No. 65(1-4)(ii) and Serial No. 38-A(c)/II. The dispute arose when the Customs authorities alleged that the imported HQV lamps for spectroscopy required a specific licence under Serial No. 38-A(c)/II, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent confiscation of the goods. The petitioners argued that the interchangeability provision allowed them to import goods covered under Serial No. 38-A(c) based on their existing licence under Serial No. 65(1-4)(ii).

2. The Assistant Collector of Customs confiscated the goods, imposing a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, which was upheld by the Appellate Collector of Customs. The petitioners contended that the imported lamps were not studio electric projector bulbs but high pressure mercury vapour lamps for medical and laboratory use, falling under the import licence category. The judicial review focused on whether the Customs authorities correctly interpreted the import policy and if the confiscation was justified.

3. The petitioners further appealed to the Government of India, challenging the appellate authority's decision, but the revisional authority dismissed the revision, citing a different Indian Tariff Code classification under Serial No. 38-A(f)/II. The petitioners invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality of the orders passed by the authorities below, emphasizing the provisions of interchangeability and the correct classification of the imported goods under the import policy.

4. The High Court, in its judgment, analyzed the provisions of interchangeability, the specific categories of goods covered under different Serial Numbers in the import policy, and the actions of the Customs authorities and revisional authority. The Court found that the authorities' interpretation was erroneous, noting that the show cause notice did not align with the later classification made by the revisional authority. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to import the goods under the interchangeability provision and set aside the orders of confiscation and penalty, ruling in favor of the petitioners and directing the respondents to pay the costs of the petition.