9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,395/- from Denmark in September 1985 under Open General Licence (OGL). Since the goods imported were not cartridge syringes and cartridge needles and were only hypodermic syringes and needles falling under Sl.No. 521 in Part-A of Appendix 3 of Import and Export Policy 1985-88, proceedings were instituted against the appellants by issue of a show cause notice which eventually culminated in the impugned order now appealed against. 3. The learned consultant for the appellants submitted that in respect of the identical goods imported by the appellants as well as others, the Customs authorities have permitted clearance of the same in previous years. It was specifically urged that the appellants imported in October, 1983 identical goods and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the Madras Dental College, the Department in fairness should have afforded the appellants an opportunity of being heard if the Department were to rely on a different opinion of the same authority against the appellants in respect of the goods imported and concerned in the case. 4. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that even though in the reply to the show cause notice the appellants have referred to clearance of disposable syringes and needles under OGL as per Sl.No.48 and 48 (b) in List 6 of Appendix 6 of Import and Export Policy, 1985-88, no particulars with reference to Bill of Entry and date of clearance were given by the appellants. The learned D.R. fairly conceded that if such clearance was permitted by the auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Appendix 6, List 6, Sl.No. 48 of the Policy 1985-88. In such a situation, the opinion expressed by the licensing authority dated 5.12.83 relied upon by the appellants and referred to above would be a relevant piece of evidence meriting consideration. The opinion of the licensing authority has not been taken into consideration under the impugned order. When the Customs authorities themselves have permitted clearance of similar or identical goods under OGL in the previous years as referred to above, the plea of the appellants regarding the same should have been taken into consideration and dealt with, particularly when the Department makes a deviation from its previous practice and holds the import in question as not permissible under OGL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t accepted and a contrary view of the same expert viz. Principal of the Madras Dental College is accepted and acted upon against the appellants. Having gone through the two respective opinions of the same authority dated 23-11-1985 and 29-10-1985 referred to supra, I should confess that the opinion of the Principal, Madras Dental College is not altogether free from ambiguity and interests of justice require that the same should be resolved and clarified. Since the opinion of the licensing authority referred to above and relied upon by the appellants has not been adverted to in the impugned order, much less considered therein, and inasmuch as the previous practice of the Customs Department permitting clearance of similar goods under OGL plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
