9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Import Export Policy - Validity of Licenses - Confiscation of Goods Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay was against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. The case involved the importation of Cadmium Metal Sticks against a non-transferable Export House Licence. The dispute arose from the interpretation of Para 138 of the 1982-83 AM Policy regarding the permissible value of imports under the license. The appellants imported goods valued at Rs. 24,176 against a license with a face value of Rs. 41,500. The authorities had ordered the confiscation of the excess value of goods and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 36,000. The appellants contended that they had complied with the conditions of the license and were entitled to import the entire value of the goods. The department argued that the import value exceeded the permissible 20% of the license's face value, justifying the confiscation. The appellants' advocate argued that the licenses issued, one for Rs. 1,66,000 and another for Rs. 41,500, were in compliance with Para 138 of the policy. They emphasized that they were actual users of the goods and had not violated any transfer conditions. On the other hand, the department contended that the import value exceeded the allowable 20% of the license's face value and supported the confiscation of the excess goods. The Tribunal examined the licenses produced and noted that they were issued in accordance with Para 138, with one license being transferable and the other non-transferable with actual user conditions. It was observed that the appellants had not breached any conditions and were entitled to import the entire value of the goods under the split licenses. The Tribunal rejected the department's argument that the split license for Rs. 1,66,000 was no longer valid, emphasizing that it was linked to the Rs. 41,500 license and should be read together. It was established that the unutilized balance of the split license was only for specific items listed in Appendix 17, not for Appendix 3 items. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the goods were not liable for confiscation and set aside the order, providing relief to the appellants. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with license conditions and interpreting policy provisions accurately to determine the permissible import value under specific licenses.
|
