1992 (1) TMI 101 - SC - Customs

Whether the import of Palm acid oil - a canalised item - was unauthorised? Held that - There is no ambiguity in the order which makes it clear that the additional licence holders would not be entitled to import the items which are specifically banned under the import policy 1985-88. No other interpretation is possible. Some of the Departmental officers were not justified in taking the view that the order permitted the import of canalised items.Admittedly, the item imported by the respondent was a banned item under the Import Policy 1985-88. The import was, thus, on the face of it unauthorised. Allow the appeal with costs, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and restore the order of the Collector Customs Calcutta confiscating the goods and giving an option to the respondent to get the goods released on payment of fine of ₹ 58,00,000/- (fifty eight lacs).

Summary

Issues:
1. Grant of Export House Certificate under Import Policy 1978-79.
2. Confiscation of Palm acid oil import.
3. Interpretation of Court orders regarding import policies.
4. Bona fide import of canalised item.
5. Tribunal's decision and appeal by Union of India.

Issue 1 - Grant of Export House Certificate:
The respondent applied for an Export House Certificate under the Import Policy 1978-79, which was initially denied due to alleged lack of export diversification. However, the Bombay High Court allowed the respondent's writ petition, directing the issuance of the certificate. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that diversification was not a prerequisite for the certificate under the mentioned policy.

Issue 2 - Confiscation of Palm acid oil import:
The respondent imported Palm acid oil, a canalised item under the Import Policy 1985-88, following the Supreme Court's order. Despite this, the goods were confiscated by the Customs Collector in Calcutta. The Tribunal later overturned this decision, citing the respondent's bona fide belief in the import's legality based on representations by government authorities.

Issue 3 - Interpretation of Court orders on import policies:
The Union of India appealed the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the import of banned items under the Import Policy 1985-88 was unauthorized, as clarified by previous court judgments. The Supreme Court reiterated that only items permissible under the relevant import policies could be imported, emphasizing the need for adherence to specific policy guidelines.

Issue 4 - Bona fide import of canalised item:
The Tribunal justified the respondent's import based on representations by Departmental authorities, indicating a legitimate belief in the import's legality. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that such beliefs were irrelevant in the face of clear court judgments outlining import policy restrictions.

Issue 5 - Tribunal's decision and Union of India's appeal:
The Supreme Court overturned the Tribunal's decision, highlighting errors in accepting the respondent's plea of bona fide import. The Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to import policy guidelines and rejected the Tribunal's reliance on inter-departmental communications. The appeal was allowed, costs were imposed, and the original order of confiscation was restored.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal complexities surrounding import policies, the importance of strict adherence to court orders, and the consequences of unauthorized imports despite perceived bona fide intentions.