1983 (12) TMI 64 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of import licences validity, correlation between imported and exported items, retrospective effect of public notices, classification of imported goods as synthetic resin, consistency of Customs House practice, application of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.

Interpretation of import licences validity: The petitioners, a Government Undertaking and a shareholder, imported synthetic resin using valid licences transferred to them. The Collector of Customs held the import invalid as the goods did not correlate with the export product group specified in the licences, leading to a confiscation option. The Central Board upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for correlation between imported and exported items.

Retrospective effect of public notices: The authorities relied on public notices to declare the import invalid, a move contested by the petitioners citing the Supreme Court's stance against retrospective application of such notices.

Classification of imported goods as synthetic resin: The revisional authority disputed the classification of the imported goods as synthetic resin, referencing a previous court decision. The petitioners argued against this new interpretation, asserting that the goods were indeed synthetic resin as per Customs House tests.

Consistency of Customs House practice: The petitioners highlighted the consistent practice of the Customs House in releasing similar goods against similar licences in the past, questioning the confiscation decision based on Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.

Application of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act: The judgment emphasized that as the Customs House had a history of releasing similar imports and was uncertain about the validity of the petitioners' import, confiscation under Section 111(d) was deemed unnecessary. The long-standing practice and doubt within the Customs House regarding the import's validity were pivotal in the decision to rule in favor of the petitioners.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the Customs House's consistent practice and uncertainty regarding the import's validity, rendering the confiscation and fine unnecessary. The judgment highlighted the importance of historical practices and Customs House discretion in import evaluations, ultimately setting aside the authorities' decisions and absolving the petitioners from any penalties.