2000 (5) TMI 851

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Respondent. [Order]. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether M/s. Essar Steel Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, was liable to penalty for the wrongful importation by it of a boat. 2. The respondent has not challenged the finding of the Assistant Commissioner confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the importation was unauthorised and there is therefore no dis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent was under the impression that there is no prohibition for import of such a boat. He cites the circular 51/92-97 dated 13-6-1995 of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade in support of his view pointing out that the licensing authority itself interpreted the description of the goods prohibited for import as not including sailing boats and yachts. 5. The import policy, at the relevant time, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e same time, however, the clarification of the licensing authority raises the question as to what exactly the scope of the item in the negative list is. It cannot be disputed that sailing boats or yachts are in the nature of water transport craft. If the licensing authority took the view that these crafts do not fall within the meaning of the term water transport crafts , the respondent could be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X