Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 1988 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1988 (4) TMI 53 - HC - Customs

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Customs Authorities confiscating goods and imposing fines; Interpretation of Import Policy for the year 1981-1982 regarding import of Partially Oriented Yarn (POY); Examination of petitioner's entitlement to import POY as an actual user under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act; Analysis of penalty imposed by Assistant Collector of Customs.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a public limited company licensed to manufacture polyester filament yarn, challenged Customs Authorities' orders confiscating goods and imposing fines. The company had imported POY under the Import Policy for 1981-1982, believing it was allowed as actual users. The Textile Commissioner confirmed this understanding initially. However, a subsequent letter from the Textile Commissioner stated that prior approval from the Directorate General of Technical Development was required for importing POY, leading to confusion regarding the petitioner's actual user status.

The petitioner argued that as a licensed manufacturer of filament yarn with draw texturising machines, it was entitled to import POY as an actual user under the Import Policy. The Assistant Collector, however, noted the petitioner's registration under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act and the requirement to manufacture filament yarn from basic stages, prohibiting the import of intermediate products like POY. The Assistant Collector held that the petitioner was not entitled to import POY as an actual user, as it was licensed to manufacture filament yarn.

The petitioner's contention that it could import POY for manufacturing texturised filament yarn due to having draw texturising machines was rejected. The industrial license granted to the petitioner did not permit the import of intermediate products like POY for manufacturing purposes. The Assistant Collector's penalty imposition was also challenged as unduly harsh, but it was deemed appropriate considering market prices and circumstances.

Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, ruling against the petitioner's challenge to the confiscation orders and penalty imposition. The judgment highlighted the petitioner's lack of entitlement to import POY under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act and upheld the penalty imposed by the Assistant Collector as reasonable under the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates