9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that the appeal was filed by the appellants with the Special Bench at Delhi, and in column No. 8 of the prescribed proforma the appellants have stated that the order-under-appeal involves the rate of duty matter. But according to his information, the papers had been submitted to the Sr. Vice-President, and the appeal had been transferred to the West Regional Bench at Bombay under the order of the Sr. Vice-President, as the matter did not come within the jurisdiction of the Special Bench. In view of these clarifications I reserved my order on the objection raised by the learned departmental representative regarding the jurisdiction and agreed to hear the appeal subject to my decision on the above aspect. The learned Counsel for the appellants explained that they have imported Crude Emetine for the purpose of refining it to pharmacopoeial standard. On analysis by ITALAB done at the request of the Custom House, the goods were found to contain 81.85% emetine hydrochloride and remaining 18.15% being moisture and other impurities. The Custom House had accordingly held that their licence No. 2940081, dated 9-3-1981 for 10 Kgs. crude emetine was not valid. The learned Counsel stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cence produced by the appellants should be considered as valid, and therefore, the Addl. Collector s order should be set aside. He has further clarified in answer to my query that the appellants did not apply for amendment of the licence or for a letter of recommendation in the present case, as the appellants had considered that the licence was valid to cover the import of the goods. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Addl. Collector had not given any reasons why he discarded the certificate of Dr. Nityanand. The goods were covered by Sr. Nos. 17 18 of Notification No. 117-Cus., dated 9-6-1978 as amended, as reproduced in the Customs Tariff Working Schedule as corrected upto 16-8-1982. The Counsel further submitted that the Addl. Collector had mentioned in his findings that he was taking a lenient view, which was not so as the appellants had lost the benefit of Notification No. 117-Cus., dated 9-6-1978 as amended. 2. The learned departmental representative has pointed out the requirements of Clause (3) of the Imports (Control) order under which the licence is required for the import of the goods. He has stated that the description in the licence given was correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. The present import was not on advance licence. They could have approached the C.C.I either before or after the import of the goods to get the description amended, and he drew my attention in this behalf to the amendment endorsement obtained on C.C.P. No. 3058987, dated 16-5-1981 which had been made valid for the goods shipped or arrived. He thus pointed out that no efforts had been made to get the licence description amended. As regards the release of papaverine hydrochloride against licence for crude papaverine, the departmental representative stated that no evidence had been submitted by the appellants in support of their contention. In this view, the licence for crude emetine could not be held as valid for emetine hydrochloride which was a separate substance. Accordingly, he submitted that the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs was correct. He further pointed out that the importer could have obtained a specific licence. Finally, he drew my attention to para 322 of AM-81 Handbook on Import-Export Procedure to say that the licence was not valid and that the appeal should be dismissed. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has stated in reply that in our country o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t even though the Sr. Vice-President might have decided that the appeal should be transferred to the West Regional Bench, his decision to the effect is administrative and not judicial, and therefore, the matter should be transferred to the Special Bench for obtaining a judicial verdict in the matter. In a sense, both the appellants and the respondent seem to be of the same opinion that the present appeal lies to the Special Bench, as it involves determination of rate of duty question. On examining the subject minutely, I find that I cannot agree with the aforesaid proposition. The order-under-appeal deals with the validity or otherwise of the licence produced for the import of the goods in question. Nowhere has the adjudicating authority dealt with the question of the rate of duty applicable to the case. There cannot, therefore, be any appeal in this behalf. The Addl. Collector s order is to the effect of levying a fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the goods imported by the appellants and the appellants have felt aggrieved with this order. It is this order which is in appeal before me, and the order nowhere touches the question of exemption under Notification No. 117, dated 9-6-1978. Though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
