Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1989 (3) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rt by the two appellants herein of consignment of Hydroquinone against REP licence issued under Appendix 17 (A. 82 category) import policy period 1985-88. The consignments imported by appellant Patwari Traders Pvt. Ltd. (C/355/88) were valued at Rs. 6,82,628/- c.i.f. and the import by appellants M/s. Kantilal Manilal & Co. (C/526/88) was valued at Rs. 13,62,680.64 c.i.f. The Bills of Entry (B/E) for these were filed respectively during February 1988 and December 1987. The Collector held that the import licences produced were not valid to cover the goods imported and ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 imposing a fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 4,10,000/- in the case of appellant Kantilal Manil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d considering the reply to the show cause notice held that the licences produced were not valid to cover the import of the goods and ordered confiscation of the goods levying redemption fine as already stated above. 3. Shri T.V. Krishnamurthy, the learned Consultant appeared for the appellants. He submitted that import licences were issued under Appendix 17 which is a self-contained policy in itself relating to registered exporters. Para 5 of Appendix 17 is important which says that no import of an item appearing in Appendix 2 shall be allowed against REP licence except if an item appearing in Appendix 2, Part B is specifically described for import either under Column 4 or Column 5 under Appendix 17. He further went on to cite the decision .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... toms House and the Collector (Appeals) found that there was no ground to review the order of the Assistant Collector accepting the REP licence for these goods. He referred to the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dated 26-4-1988 in Order No. M.CUS/976/88 in respect of the imports by the same appellants of the same commodity. The Collector (Appeals) decision not to review the Assistant Collector's order accepting the REP licence has not been challenged, according to the learned Consultant. Therefore, he urged that findings of the Collector should be set aside and the licences produced by the appellants accepted. 4. Shri K.K. Bhatia, the learned S.D.R. appearing for the Department contended that in considering the validity of the l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd the learned S.D.R. The question is whether the licences produced under Appendix 17 (A. 82 category) Electroplating Salt and Brighteners would cover the import of Hydroquinone which is specifically described in Appendix 3 Part A. The Technical opinion from the Central Electrochemical Research Institute, Karaikudi produced by the appellant shows that Hydroquinone is used as a grain refiner agent in the Electroplating process. "It is stated that Hydroquinone is used as grain refiner as acid copper bath and in cobalt sulphate solution, it acts as a brightener". The contention of the Customs House that use of the goods as Brightener is scanty has already been answered by the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal in its decision in the case of M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the issue. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal had followed the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of Hyderabad Engineering Industries, Hyderabad v. CCI& E, New Delhi reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 620 (AP). The conclusion of the Collector that it is the predominant use that is the criterion laid down by the Supreme Court, was in a case relating to classification of goods under Sales Tax Act, whereas when one is considering the classification of an item under the import policy, the parameters in the said policy itself have to be looked into, and the REP licence conditions in Appendix 17 thereof have to be seen. The West Regional Bench of the Tribunal in its decision had also considered para 21(c) of the Import Policy 198 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates