9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t licences for importation of three distinct items : stainless steel strips, stainless steel sheets and stainless steel circles. These licences have been annexed to the petition as Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3, the particulars of which are as under :- (i) Licence No. P/L/1237927 dated 21-6-1968 for 1776 Kgs. within the face value of Rs. 14,437/- C.I.F. (ii) Licence No. P/L/1237942 dated 2-7-1968 for 9975 Kgs. within the face value of Rs. 75,000/- C.I.F. (iii) Licence No. P/L/1238487 dated 18-10-1968 for 1373 Kgs. within the face value ofRs. 11,126/-C.I.F." 3. Taking all these licences together, the petitioners were entitled to import a total quantity of 13,124 Kgs. of stainless steel sheets, or stainless steel strips or stainless ste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered by his licence, a face value restriction or value limit, or quantity limit, has been indicated in the licence or made applicable the licensee can import such item(s) more in value or quantity, as the case may be, not exceeding 10 per cent of the specified limit, or quantity limit, or face value restriction, provided the total import does not exceed the overall face value of the licence." From the reading of the above, it is obvious that the final limitation in connection with the import is the overall face value of the licence. In the instant case, the overall face value of the three licences have not been exceeded, and in terms of paragraph 84(1), there was no need to obtain any specific endorsement from the licensing authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eel strips,........ Each is a distinct commercially known commodity, and are, therefore, distinct items. 9. In my view the petitioners are entitled to the benefit and advantage of flexibility contemplated by paragraph 84(1) of the Import Trade Control Policy Hand Book of Rules Procedure, 1968, and the authorities below were in error in not giving this flexibility. The orders dated 9th January, 1970, 13th December, 1971, and 15th July, 1972 suffer from these infirmities, and they have not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, in their correct perspective, and are thus liable to be quashed. The aforesaid orders are, therefore, quashed. 10. The fine of Rs. 25,000/-, which was imposed and maintained by the respondents, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
