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 (10) TMI 170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inafter referred to as Act) imposition of Rs. 2.5 lakhs of Redemption fine and Rs. 10,000/- personal penalty under Section 112 of the Act. 2. The facts of the case as set out in the order-in-original are that the appellants filed Bill of Entry No. 1168 dated 29-9-1986 for the clearance of Sufeed Sarah (Poppy Seeds - Khaskhas) of declared value of Rs. 1,23,615/- CIF covered under Invoice No. 6/62/E/SCL/86-87 dated 21-8-1986 ofM/s. Saeed & Co., Lahore. The appellants claimed the clearance of the goods under import under O.G.L. Appendix 6(1) of AM 85-88 Policy. The Customs covered the impugned goods under Entry No. 121 of Appendix 2 Part B of AM 85-88 Policy and for the clearance of which sought specific licence/CCP. 3. The Collector of Cust .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... observed in his order that the goods had been brought from a country where it is an illicit cultivation. India being the world's largest producer of opium and poppy seeds and in view of the matter, the Collector observed that he did not find it necessary to take a lenient view and hence passed the impugned order. 6. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, Advocate for the appellants, submitted that the goods were not cultivated illicitly as the export had been done through Pakistan Trading Corporation a Government unit. He further submitted that the imported goods poppy seeds were in crude form and it was required by importer-appellant for use in the manufacture of Ayurvedic drugs and hence it was entitled for being cleared under OGL as it was not a consume .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d question that arises for consideration is as to the justification of imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-under Section 112 of the Act in view of their earlier importation being granted on the basis of the endorsement of bill of entry by Ministry of Health for their home consumption as crude drugs. 10. The contention of the Department is that the import of the goods without a valid import licence is prohibited under Clause 3(1) of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 (as amended) issued under Section 4 and 4-A of Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947 read with Section 11 of the Act as made applicable by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Act. Any goods imported in violation of the said prohibitions a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Consumption for manufacture of drugs. The list does not include the imported goods namely poppy seeds safeed sarah Khaskhas. We shall examine these contentions and also the contentions regarding the Collector's observation of the imported goods being illicit cultivation. As regards, the Collector's observation that the imported goods are brought from a country where it is an illicit cultivation, it is to be said that the observation is not based on any evidence and hence, an inference cannot be drawn by us. As also, the export has been done through a State agency of that country. However, the impugned goods are consumer goods, as has been held by the Collector, which finding has not been seriously challenged or controverted by the appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has not been controverted by the Department. Such a reading cannot be done by us. We cannot add, include or even exclude any item from the Appendix 6, Serial No. 1 (OGL for AU) which is beyond our scope and hence, we reject this plea of the appellants. 13. The only other question which remains for us to answer is as to the justification of the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The counsel pointed out that they had been allowed to import the said item on previous occasions and had been cleared also. There had been no malafides in importation as it was certified by the Ministry of Health for use in the manufacture of drugs and the importer is a genuine user of the same which is not doubted by the Department. H .....

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