9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of imported CRCA sheets under Section 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. 3. Imposition of penalty on the appellant firm and its partner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confiscation of Imported CRCA Sheets under Section 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962: The appellants imported CRCA sheets under an advance licence issued by the Regional Advance Licensing Committee (RALC) without specifying the thickness or gauge. The Customs authorities alleged that the imported sheets were not suitable for manufacturing the bicycle parts as specified in the DEEC book and advance licence, thus contravening Sections 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal observed that the licensing authority had duly scrutinized and recommended the advance licence for defective CRCA sheets, without specifying any thickness. The Customs authorities cannot go beyond the terms of the licence issued by the licensing authority. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Lokesh Chemical Works v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay & Ors., which held that Customs authorities cannot interpret or enforce licensing policy once a valid licence is produced. The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods were covered by the licence and the Customs authorities had no jurisdiction to confiscate the goods under Sections 111(m) and 111(o). 2. Applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The appellants argued that the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel applied as they acted upon the licence issued by the licensing authority, manufactured and exported bicycle parts, and earned foreign exchange. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Motilal Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., which held that the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is applicable against the government in its governmental, public, or executive functions. The Customs authorities, being a wing of the government, are bound by the promise made by the licensing authority. The Tribunal concluded that the principle of promissory estoppel applied to the facts of the case, and the confiscation of the goods was not in accordance with the law. 3. Imposition of Penalty on the Appellant Firm and its Partner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962: The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty on the appellant firm and its partner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, was not legal. The appellants had complied with the conditions of exporting bicycle parts and the imported goods were covered by the licence. The Customs authorities had no jurisdiction to impose penalties based on their interpretation of the suitability of the imported materials for manufacturing bicycle parts. The Tribunal set aside the order of penalty imposed on the appellant company and its proprietor. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the order of confiscation of the imported goods, the assessment made on the same, and the imposition of penalties on the appellant company and its proprietor were all set aside. The appellants were entitled to consequential reliefs. The appeal was taken up for hearing out of turn and disposed of accordingly.
|
