9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of import licences for specific goods. 2. Conflict between foreign standards and Indian standards. 3. Application of Indian Pharmacopoeia in determining permissible imports. 4. Discrepancy in Customs House decisions regarding import standards. 5. Imposition of fines and confiscation of goods. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the interpretation of import licences and the conflict between foreign and Indian standards. The applicants had imported Thiamine Mononitrate against licences issued for exports of products other than Vitamin B1. The issue arose because the export product specified in the licences did not match the required products for importing Vitamin B1, B2, and Vitamin C. The lower authorities disallowed the import based on the similarity between Thiamine Mononitrate and Vitamin B1 according to various pharmacopoeias, despite the Indian Pharmacopoeia recognizing Thiamine Hydrochloride alone as Vitamin B1. The Customs House had taken conflicting stands on import standards, leading to uncertainty. At the appellate level, the Board decided to show leniency to imports that were already in process or contracted for, reducing redemption fines significantly. The government reviewed the case and considered evidence from Indian Pharmacopoeia and other government organizations, concluding that the confusion at the Customs House and the discrepancy in import decisions warranted giving the applicants the benefit of the doubt. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to Indian standards in such cases of doubt between foreign and Indian standards. Ultimately, the government set aside the orders imposing fines, declaring the licences valid for the imports and granting consequential relief to the applicants. The judgment highlights the significance of adhering to Indian standards in determining permissible imports, especially in cases where there is ambiguity or conflicting decisions within the Customs House.
|
