1994 (12) TMI 207 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether the import of Video projectors was permissible under the relevant Import Policy.
2. Determination of whether the letter dated 12-11-1989 of the Joint Chief Controller constituted a final and binding interpretation of the Policy.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute regarding the import of Video projectors under the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants sought clearance of Video projectors for disseminating health and family planning information in rural areas. The Customs Department objected to the clearance, leading to a show cause notice proposing confiscation and penal action. The Adjudicating Authority ordered confiscation and imposed penalties. The Tribunal heard the appeal, where one Member held that the Video projectors could not be imported under the flexibility clause, while another Member found them entitled to clearance under Para 177(2) of the Policy. The President agreed with the former, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The applicants contended that the import was covered by the specific licence and challenged the Tribunal's decision. The Counsel argued for reference of questions of law as per the decision in R.D. Electronics v. Collector of Customs, emphasizing the interpretation of the relevant Import Policy.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around the interpretation of the letter dated 12-11-1989 from the Joint Chief Controller. The applicants questioned whether this letter constituted a final and binding interpretation of the Policy, as assumed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in relying on this interpretation, as it conflicted with the statutory provisions of the Import Policy. The Jt. CDR opposed the Reference application, stating that the Tribunal's order was based on factual findings and evidence, not raising any legal questions. However, the Tribunal found that the interpretation of the Import Policy was a legal issue, requiring a reference to the High Court for clarification.

In conclusion, the case involved complex legal interpretations of the Import Policy regarding the import of Video projectors, highlighting the importance of understanding statutory provisions and their application in specific circumstances. The decision to refer questions of law to the High Court demonstrates the significance of clarity in legal interpretation for resolving disputes in customs matters.