9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the validity of an import licence amendment, the authority of the licensing authority to relax conditions, the retrospective application of amendments to licences, and the legality of goods imported under the amended licence. Summary: 1. The appellant was granted a licence to import a newsprint manufacturing plant, but the customs department seized the plant due to age restrictions on some components. 2. The importer obtained amendments to the licence to cover the import of goods more than seven years old, which were already under seizure by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. 3. The department proposed confiscation of the goods, arguing that the amendments were not legally binding. The Commissioner ordered confiscation and imposed a penalty. 4. The appellant argued that the amendments were valid under the import policy and cited legal precedents supporting the validity of import licences even if contrary to regulations. 5. The department contended that the import licence was not valid for goods over seven years old at the time of importation, and amendments could not retroactively validate earlier imports. 6. The circumstances of the licensing authority's amendments and the discrepancy in the age of the imported goods were not fully explained. 7. The Tribunal held that the amendments to the licence were valid and could operate retrospectively based on the policy empowering the licensing authority to relax conditions. 8. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's reasoning that amendments to a licence are only effective from the date of amendment, citing legal principles on the validity of import licences. 9. The Tribunal emphasized that the licensing authority had the power to relax conditions and that once the condition in the policy was dispensed with by the amendment, there was no illegality. 10. The Tribunal stated that customs authorities cannot question a valid import licence or refuse to accept it based on perceived policy violations, emphasizing the distinction between the roles of licensing and customs authorities. 11. The Tribunal disagreed with the revenue's contention that a licence is only valid until cancelled, holding that a retrospective amendment could cover goods imported before the amendment. 12. The Tribunal noted a Bombay High Court judgment on the licencing authority's discretion in deciding import quantities but did not address the issue of discretion in this case. 13. The Tribunal concluded that the import was covered by the valid licence, and the confiscation and penalty imposed were contrary to law, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.
|
