9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Appendix (import of Jade, pearls and corals will be allowed only in the powder form and of non-jewellery quality only) . 2.1. Accordingly the import of Darchini (Bark) vide item 47 of list 4 was admissible under O.G.L. This item was deleted vide ITC Public Notice No. 121-ITC (PN)/85-88 dated 6th October, 1986. This item was also covered by Item 39 of Appendix 6 but the same had been deleted vide I.T.C. Public Notice No. 119-ITC (PN)/85-88 dated 26.9.86 read with Import Trade Control Order No. 63/85-88 dated 26.9.86. It was, however, brought under Appendix 5, Part A item 32-A, the import of which was canalised through Public Sector Agencies through this I.T.C. Public Notice No.119-ITC (PN)/85-88 dated 26th September, 1986. As per para 4 of this Public Notice, the import is admissible under O.G.L. where LCs have been opened and established before the date of Public Notice i.e. 6th October, 1986. LC No. BY 2230 2232 were issued on 6th October, 1986. The appellants contended that the application for LCs was made on 4th October, 1986 but were issued on 6th October, 1986. The learned Collector of Customs had passed the orders as under- Name of the party Order-in- o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Collector of Customs, New Delhi reported in 1988(16) ECR 67. He has pleaded for the rejection of the appeal. 6. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of the present appeal are not disputed. The facts are similar to the facts of the matter involved in the case of Gulab Impex Enterprises v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi reported in 1988(16) ECR 67. Both the sides agree that the facts are similar and as such we need not reproduce the same. The only issue to be decided is whether the Public Notice dated 6.10.1986 appearing in the Gazette of the same date can be said to have been published on 6.10.1986 itself in the eye of law. Shri M.G.S. Murthy, the learned Advocate stated that the appellants came to know about the Public Notice No. 121-ITC (PN)/85-88 dated 6.10.1986 on 9.10.1986 in the Newspaper namely, Financial Express dated 9.10.86. Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Asia Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1984(18) E.L.T. 152 had held that where a notification has been issued, the effective date is the date of knowledge and not from the date of the official gazette. Para 14 of the said ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification became effective so far as the petitioner is concerned only on and from 7.12.1982. It had no legal efficacy anterior to that date. The Respondents have not denied the factual position that the Official Gazette containing the withdrawal Notification, though dated 30.11.1982 was, in fact, placed on sale for public only on 8.12.1982. The respondents are taking up a stand that the petitioner is expected to be aware of the Withdrawal Notification and that the words publish in Official Gazette and the words put up for sale to public are not synonymous and offering for sale to public is a subsequent step which cannot be imported into the Act, and the respondents are expressing similar stands. They could not be of any avail at all to the respondents to get out of the legal implications flowing from want of due notification, as exemplified above. Printing the notifications in the Official Gazette, without making it available for circulation to the concerned public, or placing it for sale to the said public, would certainly not satisfy the idea of notification in the legal sense. One of the stands taken by the respondents is that the Officers concerned have been informed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would require the authorities under the Act to follow the judgment of the Bombay High Court until it is reserved in appeal and not to take a view different from that of Bombay High Court. If this was permitted this would lead to uncertainty of law as the Tribunals are under the General Superintendence of the High Courts and must follow their decision. If, therefore, the petitioner was to be relegated to seek its remedy before the appellate or the revisional authority only one of the two courses could be followed i.e. (i) that the authority under the Act should follow the Bombay High Court deicision and give relief to the petitioner or (ii) that the respondent should ignore the judgment of the Bombay High Court and take a contrary view. In the event of the first course being followed the Excise authorities will be prevented from challenging the view taken by the Bombay High Court so far as the present petitioner is concerned because it will not be possible for the respondent to have this matter pursued further in any proceedings. In the other alternative, the result will be ignoring and acting contrary to the judgment of the Bombay High Court by the Tribunal under the Act which woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not. It will then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation. Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that mode of publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognized official channel, namely, the official gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication. There may be a subordinate legislation which is concerned with a few individuals or is confined to small local areas. In such cases publication or promulgation by other means may be sufficient. (Emphasis supplied) Relying upon the said decision ot the Supreme Court rendered in B.K. Srinivasan Others supra and other judgments and more particularly after taking into consideration the fact that the appeal is pending in the Supreme Court against the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd, supra the Bombay High Court has also take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already opened and established before the date of the Public Notice in question. Before we part on this question, it will be useful to mention here that the Customs Authorities at Bombay cleared another consignment (3.5 MTs) of the identical goods in March 1987, which was imported by the appellants on the strength of Letter of Credit No. BY-2229 dated 6.10.1986 without any objection." 9. In view of the above discussion, the appeals have to be allowed. In the case of M/s. Silibans International, I set aside the redemption fine of Rs. 7,75,000/- and 3,75,000/- and in the case of Shri Vinod Bansal I set aside the personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-. The penalty imposed on M/s. Silibans International of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- is also set aside. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside. The above appeals are allowed. The revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order. 10. [Per: P.C. Jain, Member CD]. - Since it is admitted to both the sides that the facts in this case are on all fours with the facts of the case of Gulab Impex Enterprises Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi [1988(16) ECR 67] and the learned SDR for the dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
