9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x 6, List 8, Part I, Item No. 173. The goods had been shipped on 20-10-1987 but contract for import has been registered with the Textile Commissioner vide Registration No. 47/Others/M/87-88 dated 12-11-1987. Clearance of the said goods against OGL was not accepted by the Department on the ground that the contract was not registered with the Textile Commissioner at the time of shipment of the goods. It was held that the import is unauthorised under the provisions of para 26 of Import Export Policy read with para 11 of Appendix 6 to Import Export Policy. The Collector who adjudicated the proceedings passed order confiscating the goods in question under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, he gave an option to redeem the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose, two copies of the contract should be lodged with the Textile Commissioner and he will return one copy to the importer duly stamped on each page for production to the customs at the time of clearance of goods. At the time of registration of a subsequent contract, the eligible importer should also furnish a statement indicating the progress made in import and utilization/disposal of the imported material in respect of all the contracts earlier registered for information/record of the Registering authority. The learned Advocate said the stipulation in the above paragraph is that imports shall be made only after the connected contracts have been stamped by the Textile Commissioner, Bombay as evidence of such registration and furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther the same was confirmed by the DGTD. He said under these circumstances imposition of redemption fine is not called for and it is not incumbent to the Department to pass order of confiscation or imposition of penalty. In the present case the Collector himself has given a clear finding that he did not find any mala fide intention on the part of the importer. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Peejay Maya Exports v. Collector of Customs, Bombay -1988 (33) E.L.T. 383 (Tribunal) = 1988 (14) ECR 87; Preetliya Jewellers v. Collector of Customs - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 170 and Miles India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 577 (Tribunal) = 1991 (33) ECR 430 wherein a view was taken that in the absence of any find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made even on import of the yarn. Import under OGL is not valid and the Department was fully justified in imposing redemption fine. 6. In reply Shri Kumar said that the condition specified in para 26 of the Policy refers to stipulation of time, if any, mentioned in the licence or in the permit and accordingly this condition cannot be taken into consideration to treat the import is invalid as such because the conditions were duly fulfilled as per provisions of para 11 of Appendix 6 to the Policy. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced on both sides and perused the record. In the present case, the Collector has given a clear finding that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the importer in importation and accordingly waiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
