1994 (8) TMI 122 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under Additional Import Licence.
2. Validity of restrictions on importation through specific ports.
3. Jurisdiction of authorities under Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947.
4. Interpretation of Open General Licence Scheme.
5. Applicability of conditions governing imports under Additional Licences.
6. Judicial interpretations by various High Courts on similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the confiscation of 40,000 kgs. of synthetic rags imported by the appellants under Additional Import Licence, with a fine and penalty imposed for contravention of ITC Public Notice and Order restricting import to Bombay and Delhi ICD ports.

2. The Chartered Accountant for the appellants cited a judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which declared the Public Notice and ITC Order as ultra vires the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, stating that restricting importation through specific ports lacked valid jurisdiction.

3. The Respondent's representative acknowledged that the matter was covered by the Calcutta High Court judgment, indicating agreement with the legal position established by the higher court.

4. The Tribunal examined the Calcutta High Court's judgment, emphasizing that restrictions on port-specific importation under the Open General Licence Scheme lacked a valid basis and were beyond the scope of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947.

5. The High Court further ruled that amendments to the Open General Licence conditions did not automatically apply to imports under Additional Licences, highlighting the need for clarity in the Import Policy regarding the applicability of import conditions.

6. Referring to similar cases, the Tribunal noted judgments by other High Courts, such as the Madras High Court and Rajasthan High Court, which also deemed port-specific import restrictions as discriminatory, arbitrary, and unreasonable, leading to the allowance of Writ Petitions in favor of the importers.

7. Based on the legal precedents and the interpretation of the law by various High Courts, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of goods and the penalty, ultimately allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.