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 (4) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mehta Co. This latter position was allowed on the 26th November 1982 and it was held that the view taken by the Department that the petitioners were not entitled to the certificates of export house on the ground that they had exported only diamonds and the exports were diversified and hence were not entitled to the certificate of Export House, was erroneous. Following the decision in Writ Petition No. 1458 of 1979, the petitioners Writ Petition No. 1501 of 1981 in the Delhi High Court and various similar petitions were allowed. The Department carried the matter to the Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 1423 of 1984,wherein by judgment and order dated the 18th April 1985 the appeal was dismissed and the view expressed in the variou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 3. Then came the case of M/s. Indo-Afghan Chambers of Commerce which was decided by the Supreme Court on the 14th May 1986, wherein it was held that the goods covered under Appendix 2 Part B of the Import Export Policy 1985-88 were restricted items which were covered under the expression specifically banned and hence the same were not importable. 4. Then came the case of M/s. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. which was filed in this Court and this Court in Appeal No. 565 of 1986, by placing reliance on the Raj Prakash Chemicals case as also Indo-Afghan Chambers of Commerce s case, held that the additional licence-holders were entitled to import canalised items and canalised items could not be considered as banned items. The petitioners having .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... petitioners and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioners on the 21st September 1987 filed the present petition. 6. On the 8th October 1987, rule was issued and an interim order was passed directing the respondents to clear the goods on the petitioners paying all the duties and 50% of the CIF value of the goods. The petitioners on paying an amount of Rs. 98,939.50 Ps. cleared the goods. 7. Then followed yet another case of the Supreme Court being the case of B. Vijay Kumar Co. which was decided on the 16th December 1988. In that case, a grievance was made on behalf of traders in regard to the hardship suffered by them in view of the various judgments which had been passed from time to time. The view .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e petitioners in the case of B. Vijay Kumar Co. had opened their Letters of Credit after the 18th April 1985 and the Supreme Court held that the said two cases were bona fide importers against whom orders of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine could not be passed. Shri Shringarpure, on the other hand, placed reliance on the case of Raj Prakash Chemicals Ltd., wherein the following observations were made :- At the same time we make it clear that diamond exporter who pursuant to the issue of additional licences under the Import Policy 1978-79 have opened and established irrevocable letters of credit on or after October 18,1985 will not be entitled to the benefit of this order. Shri Shringarpure also placed reliance on the d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rvations of the Supreme Court in the case of B. Vijay Kumar Co. We would like to emphasise that since we have decided the matter in view of the special facts and circumstances available in these cases this order will not be treated as a precedent. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, I am of the view that the facts obtaining in the present petition are identical to the facts which were before the Supreme Court in the case of B. Vijay Kumar Co. It is true as submitted by Shri Shringarpure that the Supreme Court in this case was not concerned with the cut off date of 18th October 1985 which was considered in the Raj Prakash Chemicals case but was concerned only with the hardship sustained by the petitioners before them. That .....

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