9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r relating to the same appellant, they are taken up together and disposed of by a single order. 2. The appellants filed claims for refund in respect of the duty paid on goods imported and covered by 11 Bills Entry referred to in the order of the original authority. The refund claims were made on the ground that the appellants would be entitled to concessional assessment under the Customs Tariff Schedule 84.66(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and have paid in excess of the amount payable by them. The original authority rejected the appellants refund claims of the ground that the goods imported were shipped between 7-5-1984 and 19-10-1984 after expiry of the validity period of the licence for the import of the same and, therefore, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sional assessment in respect of the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965. The learned counsel further submitted that this question with reference to validity of licence by applying the grace period was not gone into by the authorities below and considered on merits. It was urged that the CEGAT by Order, dated 27-6-1986 in Customs Appeal No. 162/85 and Customs Appeal No. 213/85 upheld the order of the Additional Collector of Customs and gave a finding that the goods imported were in contravention of I.T.C. Regulations. The learned counsel submitted that CEGAT in the said decision did not address itself to the validity of the licence in question with reference to the applicability of the grace period as per law and as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 27-6-1986 resulting in an order of confiscation of the goods and a fine in lieu thereof and a personal penalty. Such a finding of the Tribunal, has reached a stage of finality and the same cannot be now nullified indirectly by the appellant claiming the relief under the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 as if the goods imported were covered by valid licence. The learned S.D.R. further submitted that the plea in regard to the validity of the licence with reference to the grace period was never urged by the appellant during the original adjudication proceedings of the Additional Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam and the Tribunal, therefore, rightly did not allow the appellant to raise that issue. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants. It is strange that they had not adverted to this even while explaining that the licences had been sent for re-validation. In the circumstances, the orders passed by the Additional Collector is correct in law. This finding of the Tribunal has reached a stage of finality. The plea of the learned counsel that the issue in regard to the grace period for the licence in question has not been considered by the Tribunal and, therefore, the appellants would be entitled to agitate this question in a refund application without being barred by the principles of constructive res judicata is not well-founded in law. It is now a well-settled proposition of law that quasi-judicial authority is bound by the principles of constructive res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned S.D.R. the plea in regard to the grace period was never raised in the original adjudication proceedings before the Additional Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam referred to supra. The issue was raised for the first time in appeal before the Tribunal and the same was negatived. Therefore, on application of the principles of constructive res judicata the order of the Tribunal should be held conclusive and final even in regard to the issue which the party might and ought to have litigated. We would also like to note in this context the fact that the plea in regard to the question of grace period was not put forth even in the refund claim before the original authority namely, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would present an incongruous spectacle of two orders from the same authority in respect of the same issue mutually at variance with each other. Such a course apart from being not permissible is also inconceivable in law. The learned counsel for the appellants fervently pleaded that the issue relating to the validity of the licence by application of the grace period is a pure question of law and can, therefore, be urged at any time even if it is not pleaded. We are unable to countenance this plea of the counsel either. The real question is with reference to the factual particulars in the licence in regard to the date of licence and the period of expiry, the date of shipment, factual particulars in the Bill of Lading etc. for application of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
