9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. These three appeals arise out of the same order-in-original and are, therefore, being taken together for disposal. 2. The three appellants had imported polyester [filament] texturised yarn under cover of advance licences and claimed their clearance without payment of duty. Since some documents were incomplete, the goods were permitted to be temporarily bonded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for the appellants, stated that the orders of confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 were not valid. He stated that the goods were imported in November, 1986 and at the time of importation, the subject licences were in force and valid. Their subsequent cancellation could not result in the goods being held to be without licence on the date of import. For this cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods were still in the possession of the Customs. He stated that this aspect was not relevant in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.). As regards the imposition of the penalty on the appellants, the ld. Advocate claimed that since the goods were not liable to confiscation, no penalty was imposable under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in their decision in the case of Sneh Sales Corporation. In this case, the goods were imported vide Bill of Entry dated 31-10-1986 and the licences were cancelled on 18-12-1986 on the ground that the licences were obtained by fraud and mis-representation. The Tribunal held that the licence continued to be valid till it was avoided. It was held that the cancellation of the licence, being s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
