1986 (10) TMI 143 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the import license.
2. Classification of palm stearin as a type of palm oil.
3. Applicability of Public Notice No. 48 of 1980.
4. Authority of the appellants to import under the given license.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Import License:
The appellants argued that the import license, dated 24-9-1979, was valid at the time of shipment. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad, held that the license expired on 23-9-1980, and thus the import was invalid. However, the Tribunal found that, according to Paragraph 205 of the Handbook of Import Export Procedures 1980-81, the license was automatically valid until the end of September 1980. The goods were shipped under three Bills of Lading dated 23-9-1980, 25-9-1980, and 27-9-1980, all within the extended validity period. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the license was valid when the goods were shipped.

2. Classification of Palm Stearin as a Type of Palm Oil:
The Collector classified palm stearin as a type of palm oil, thus making it a canalised item under the Import Policy A.M. 1981. The Tribunal disagreed, noting that palm stearin and palmolin are derivatives of palm oil and not palm oil itself. The Tribunal referenced several decisions by the Central Board of Excise & Customs and the Government of India, which consistently held that palm stearin is different from palm oil. The Tribunal concluded that palm stearin is not a type of palm oil and was not canalised during the policy period A.M. 1981.

3. Applicability of Public Notice No. 48 of 1980:
The Collector held that Public Notice No. 48 of 1980, dated 9-12-1980, had retrospective effect from 15-4-1980, making the import of palm stearin unauthorised. The Tribunal found that Public Notice No. 48 of 1980 is non-statutory and cannot operate retrospectively. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the Bombay High Court decision in M/s. Stretch Fibres (India) Ltd., which held that such notices are prospective. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Public Notice could not affect imports made under a valid license issued before its date.

4. Authority of the Appellants to Import Under the Given License:
The appellants were the letter of authority holders of the license issued to Venilal's Export House Pvt. Ltd. The Collector argued that the letter of authority did not make the appellants valid importers. The Tribunal found that Paragraph 382 of the Handbook permitted the issuance of letters of authority, and the Assistant Collector had allowed the clearance of goods under OGL based on this letter. The Tribunal held that the appellants were authorised to import under the license.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Collector, and ordered the refund of the penalty imposed. The import license was valid at the time of shipment, palm stearin was not a type of palm oil and was not canalised, Public Notice No. 48 of 1980 did not have retrospective effect, and the appellants were authorised to import under the given license.

← Previous Next →