9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1991 (11) TMI 80 - SC - CustomsWhether the industrial coconut oil was a canalised item and the appellants were not entitled to import the same? Held that - the appellants were not entitled to import the industrial coconut oil under OGL as the Import Policy of 1980-81 had been amended with effect from 3-4-1981. Any import of industrial coconut oil made by any importer would be illegal as under the Import Policy only the STC had authority to import the canalised item. The respondent-authorities were therefore justified in confiscating the goods imported by the appellants and giving option to the appellants to retrieve the goods on payment of redemption fine. We allow the appeals set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and direct that the appellants shall pay redemption fine to the extent of 35 per cent of 5 crores which amount has been determined as the redemption fine by the authorities. If the appellants have paid any excess amount the same shall be refunded to them within six weeks in default the appellants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of this order.
Issues:
1. Import of 'industrial coconut oil' - Canalised item or not 2. Imposition of redemption fine 3. Consideration of plea of bona fide 4. Discrimination in imposition of redemption fine 5. Failure of Appellate Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction Analysis: Issue 1: Import of 'industrial coconut oil' - Canalised item or not The case involved the import of 'industrial coconut oil' by the appellants in September 1982. The Collector of Customs confiscated the goods, considering it a canalised item under the Import Policy. The High Court and the Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the import was illegal as per the amended Import Policy of 1980-81, which granted import authority only to STC. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and allowed redemption on payment of a fine. Issue 2: Imposition of redemption fine The appellants were directed to pay redemption fine for importing canalised goods. The Tribunal initially imposed a 100% redemption fine. However, the Supreme Court found the Tribunal's decision unjustified and reduced the fine to 35% of the goods' value, similar to another importer's case. The Court emphasized that Customs Authorities have the discretion to determine the redemption fine under the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 3: Consideration of plea of bona fide The appellants claimed to have imported the 'industrial coconut oil' in good faith, supported by various documents showing clearance under the Import Policy of 1981-82. The Tribunal rejected this plea, citing the import date in 1982. The Supreme Court disagreed, highlighting the importance of the clearance of goods at Bombay and Kandla during the relevant Import Policy period, supporting the appellants' claim of bona fide import. Issue 4: Discrimination in imposition of redemption fine The appellants alleged discrimination in the redemption fine imposed, compared to another importer. The Tribunal differentiated based on the appellants' status as an established export house, denying them the same concession. The Supreme Court deemed this distinction unreasonable and directed the appellants to receive the same concession as the other importer. Issue 5: Failure of Appellate Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction Despite a remand order from the Supreme Court to reconsider the redemption fine and grant a similar concession, the Tribunal failed to comply. The Supreme Court criticized the Tribunal for not following the remand order and directed a reduction in the redemption fine to 35% of the goods' value, similar to the other importer's case. The Court also ordered a refund of any excess amount paid by the appellants with interest. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the appellants to pay a reduced redemption fine, emphasizing fair treatment and non-discrimination in such matters.
|
