1990 (5) TMI 134 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Liability of goods imported under OGL without compliance of para 33 of Appendix 6 of Policy AM 1984-85.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay involved two appeals arising from orders by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, concerning the liability of goods imported under the Open General Licence (OGL) without complying with para 33 of Appendix 6 of Policy AM 1984-85. The appeals were heard together due to a common question. In Appeal No. 243/85, the appellants imported green pieces without complying with the registration requirement with NEFED before import, leading to confiscation and a redemption fine. Similarly, in Appeal No. 244/85, the appellants imported goods without fulfilling the registration requirement, resulting in confiscation and a redemption fine. The advocate for the appellants argued that the word 'import' should be interpreted as per the Import and Export (Control) Act, stating that registration before actual import sufficed. He contended that the Department misinterpreted the policy and handbook provisions. The Department, represented by the JDR, supported the lower authority's decision, emphasizing the harmonious construction of policy provisions and the relevance of para 208 of the handbook in determining the date of import. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the policy and handbook, concluding that registration with NEFED should precede actual shipment, which was not the case, leading to a breach and liability for confiscation. However, considering the technical nature of the breach and the procedural purpose of registration, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fines imposed in both appeals, emphasizing a rational approach. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but modified the redemption fines, reducing them significantly in both cases.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of liability for goods imported under OGL without complying with the registration requirement of para 33 of Appendix 6 of Policy AM 1984-85. The Tribunal clarified that registration with NEFED should precede actual shipment to avoid breach and confiscation. Despite upholding the confiscation, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fines imposed in both appeals, considering the technical nature of the breach and the procedural purpose of registration.