1994 (3) TMI 117 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of import licenses for Animal Tallow.
2. Confiscation of imported goods by the Collector of Customs.
3. Interpretation of canalisation rules and impact on import of canalised items.
4. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments on canalised items to the present case.
5. Challenge to the Collector of Customs' decision and reliance on a Division Bench judgment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of import licenses for Animal Tallow
The petitioners imported Animal Tallow under licenses issued after the item was canalised. The Collector of Customs confiscated the goods, citing the canalisation order. The court noted that canalised items cannot be directly imported unless an exception is made to the rule. The Supreme Court's decisions established that the petitioners were not entitled to import Animal Tallow directly under the canalisation rules.

Issue 2: Confiscation of imported goods
The Collector of Customs confiscated the goods and offered a fine in lieu of confiscation. The petitioners challenged this decision through a writ petition. The court upheld the Collector's decision due to the canalisation rules, despite acknowledging the merit in the petitioners' contentions.

Issue 3: Interpretation of canalisation rules
The court discussed the canalisation rules and emphasized that canalised items must be imported through the designated agency. The court referred to Supreme Court judgments that clarified the restrictions on importing canalised items directly.

Issue 4: Applicability of Supreme Court judgments
The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court's decisions did not address the specific issue of importing canalised items under the import policy. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the Supreme Court's rulings clearly outlined the law regarding the import of canalised items.

Issue 5: Challenge to Collector's decision and Division Bench judgment
The petitioners cited a Division Bench judgment that allegedly supported their case post the Supreme Court rulings. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that the Division Bench decision did not negate the applicability of the Supreme Court judgments. The court upheld the Collector's decision, discharged the rule, and allowed enforcement of bank guarantees.

In conclusion, the court ruled against the petitioners, upholding the Collector of Customs' decision to confiscate the goods due to the canalisation rules, as clarified by the Supreme Court judgments. The petitioners' challenge was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with costs.