9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Import of lead concentrate without an industrial license for recovery of lead, actual user qualification, penalty imposition, interpretation of Import Policy definition of "Actual users - Industrial," scrutiny of industrial license, acceptance of claim by parent Ministry, issuance of Advance licenses by CCI, discrimination in similar imports, lack of evidence for disqualification of actual user condition, limitation period for show cause notices. Analysis: The judgment involves three appeals by the same appellant concerning the import of lead concentrate under the Open General License (OGL) without an industrial license for lead recovery. The show cause notices alleged that the appellant did not qualify as "Actual users - Industrial" due to the absence of an industrial license for lead recovery, leading to penalties totaling Rs. 75 lakhs. The key issue was whether the appellants met the definition of "Actual users - Industrial" as per the Import Policy at the material time. The industrial license possessed by the appellants allowed them to manufacture lead products, including tin lead solders, without specifying the raw materials permitted. The appellant argued that the license did not prohibit the use of lead concentrate as a raw material for the final products. The parent Ministry was aware of the appellant's use of lead concentrate and did not pursue objections, indicating acceptance of their capabilities. Furthermore, the appellant was granted Advance licenses by the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) to import lead concentrate after scrutiny, with a representative from the parent Ministry involved in the process. The judgment highlighted that similar imports under actual user conditions were made by another importer, suggesting discrimination in the treatment of the present appellants. The tribunal found that the charge of non-qualification for the actual user condition was not established. Regarding the limitation period for the show cause notices, it was determined that the industrial license did not prohibit lead concentrate use, and evidence showed the appellant's capability for smelting and refining lead concentrate. As a result, the notices were deemed barred by limitation. Ultimately, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in all three cases, setting aside the impugned orders and directing consequential relief as per the law.
|
