1986 (7) TMI 253 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Condition No. 13 of OGL No. 4.
2. Validity of the Collector's order regarding the import of copra.
3. Request for a detention certificate for wharf rent exemption.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Condition No. 13 of OGL No. 4:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Condition No. 13 of OGL No. 4. The condition stipulates that the OGL is "without prejudice to the application to any goods of any other prohibition or regulation affecting the import that may be in force at the time when such goods are imported." The Collector interpreted this to mean that since the import of copra was canalized through the State Trading Corporation (STC) during the policy period 1980-81, the importer's claim for clearance under OGL No. 4 was invalid. The appellant argued that the prohibition referred to under Condition No. 13 should be interpreted to mean prohibitions under other laws outside the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and not those within it. However, the Tribunal found that the OGL No. 4 is a specific provision under the Imports and Export (Control) Act, 1947, and that the prohibition in Condition No. 13 includes prohibitions under the same Act. The Tribunal concluded that the condition ensures that while trade is facilitated for importing replacement goods, the imports do not defeat the policy relevant at the time of import.

2. Validity of the Collector's Order:
The Collector had exercised his power under old Section 130 of the Customs Act to review the Assistant Collector's order, which allowed the clearance of copra under OGL No. 4. The appellant contended that the import was valid under OGL No. 4 and that the Collector's order was incorrect. The respondent argued that the import of copra was canalized and required an ITC license, which was not obtained by the appellant. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, stating that the import of copra was indeed canalized through the STC under Appendix 9, para No. 5(ii) of the Import Policy for the year 1980-81. Therefore, the import under OGL No. 4 was not permissible, and the Collector's order for confiscating the goods and levying a penalty was correct. The Tribunal confirmed the Collector's order and rejected the appeal.

3. Request for a Detention Certificate:
The appellants requested the issuance of a detention certificate to claim relief from wharf rent charged by the Bombay Port Trust. The Tribunal noted that this aspect did not form part of the Collector's order against which the appeal was made. Additionally, the issuance of the certificate is not decided under the Customs Act, and therefore, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with this request. Consequently, the request for a detention certificate was also rejected.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order, confirming the confiscation of the goods and the levy of a penalty. The appeal was rejected on the grounds that the import of copra was canalized and required an ITC license, which was not obtained. The request for a detention certificate was also denied due to lack of jurisdiction.