9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants imported a consignment of Diethylene Diamine (Technical) 60-68% and sought clearance of the consignment under the Open General Licence vide Appendix 6(1) of the AM 84-85 Policy. A chemical test of the representative sample drawn from another consignment of the same goods supplied by the same supplier was done by the Customs Department and it was found to be Hydrated Piperazine and the contents of Piperazine was found to be 65.4%. The appellants claimed that the same could be imported under OGL but the adjudicating authority held that the goods imported are required for the manufacture of the drugs (Piperazine Anhydrous/Piperazine Hexahydrate) and this appears under Appendix 5 Part-B of Sl. No. 3(13), and since they are canalised ite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ediate, it will be outside the purview of Para 243(4) of the relevant Policy. It was also contended that the view of the learned Collector that the goods imported are active ingredients of Piperazine Anhydrous and Hexahydrates is erroneous. It was, therefore, contended that Diethylene Diamine (Technical) 60-68% is a chemical component in a form and by a chemical process the drug Piperazine is manufactured. So, the imported material is a confused mass and it does not fall within the canalised items as sought to be made by the learned Collector. It was also contended that in the past, the department was clearing such materials and on that basis the appellant imported these materials. On that count also he contended that the impugned order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any illegal or unauthorised clearance in the past it does not confer any right on the subsequent importer. 4. We have heard the respective arguments canvassed on behalf of the appellants as well as the respondents. The learned SDR Shri M.N. Biswas has relied on a decision reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 118 (Tri.) = 1987 (12) ECR Page T36 Allana Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs. In the abovesaid case at para 8, the Tribunal held as follows :- I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. If the goods imported is Piperazine or its salt, then it is impermissible for import since Piperazine and its salt had been specifically canalised under Section III Group C of the Policy AM 78. The appellants contention in sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der item 14 of Appendix 9 of the Policy are drugs of standard quality and their active ingredients, salts and esters. Elaborating his contention Shri Patel submitted that it is drug of a pharmacopoeial grade alone that had been canalised. In support of his contention Shri Patel relied upon the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. (To be referred to as the Act ). He referred to Section 10 of the said Act which prohibited import of any drug which is not of Standard Quality . He then took us to Section 8 which define the expression Standard Quality". Further, he referred to the second schedule, item 5(b). Based on the above provisions he contended that even the canalising agency cannot import drugs which are not of standard quality. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention of Shri Patel that until a drug is of standard quality the canalising agency also cannot import has not much force. Provisio to Section 10 of the Act authorises the Central Government to permit import of any drugs or class of drugs not being of standard quality. It is not all drugs which are not of standard quality. It is not all drugs which are not of standard quality the import of which is prohibited under the Act. It is only such of the drugs which are to be directly used as medicines and if they are not of standard quality then import of those drugs is prohibited under the Act. The Act itself makes distinction between the drugs of standard quality and other types of drugs. Under the Act a drug could be of standard quality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the drug piperazine. That being so Appendix 5 Part-B, Sl. No. 3(13) read with Para 243 (4) makes it clear that the imported item is a canalised item and the entry of the same is unauthorised as far as the appellant is concerned. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the conclusions reached by the learned Collector is in any way illegal or erroneous. 8. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants had relied on a decision reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. Page-533 (Shama Engine Valves Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay). In that particular case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Customs authorities were allowing importation of materials imported by the appellants, even earlier under the licensing policy f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
