1984 (12) TMI 184 - HC - Customs

Coconut oil - In common parlance and trade circles understood to include both edible and non-edible variety

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of "coconut oil" in the Import Policy.
2. Validity of importation under the revalidated licences.
3. Allegation of extraneous influence on the Collector's decision.
4. Binding nature of the Central Government's order on the Collector.
5. Maintainability of the writ petition on grounds of alternative remedy and territorial jurisdiction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of "coconut oil" in the Import Policy:
The primary issue was whether the term "coconut oil" in Appendix 9, Para 5 of the Import Policy 1980-81 included both edible and non-edible or industrial varieties. The court noted that "coconut oil" should not be restricted to the edible variety alone. It was observed that the term must be understood in its popular sense, which includes both edible and industrial varieties. The court emphasized that in common parlance, "coconut oil" is understood to include both varieties, and there was no basis to restrict its meaning to only the edible variety.

2. Validity of importation under the revalidated licences:
The court examined whether the importation of industrial coconut oil in 1982 was valid under the revalidated licences. It was noted that the licences were subject to the conditions of the Import Policy in force at the time of the arrival of goods. Since the Import Policies for 1981-82 and 1982-83 included both edible and non-edible coconut oil as canalized items, the importation in 1982 was prohibited. The court held that the importation was in violation of the Import Policy and the Customs Act, making the goods liable for confiscation.

3. Allegation of extraneous influence on the Collector's decision:
The petitioners alleged that the Collector's decision was influenced by extraneous factors, particularly a letter from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The court found no substantial evidence to support this allegation. It was noted that the Collector independently exercised his quasi-judicial powers and decided the matter based on his interpretation of the law. The court rejected the claim of extraneous influence and upheld the Collector's decision.

4. Binding nature of the Central Government's order on the Collector:
The petitioners argued that the Collector was bound by the Central Government's order dated 31st March 1981, which held that industrial coconut oil was not a canalized item. The court rejected this argument, stating that the principles of res judicata or estoppel do not apply to tax matters. The court emphasized that the Collector was not bound by the Central Government's order and had the authority to make an independent decision. The court held that the Collector's decision was valid and not influenced by the earlier order of the Central Government.

5. Maintainability of the writ petition on grounds of alternative remedy and territorial jurisdiction:
The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court overruled these objections, noting that the petitioners had already paid the redemption fine and that the matter had been pending for a considerable time. The court decided to address the merits of the case rather than dismissing it on procedural grounds.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the Collector's decision to confiscate the goods and imposed a redemption fine. However, it remitted the matter to the Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the quantum of the redemption fine. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →