2001 (10) TMI 616

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... relevant Appendix to EXIM Policy 1997-2002. The export item mentioned at Sr. No. 25(a) ibid was - knitted . The Customs authorities on physical examination of the goods found them to be garments made of netted fabrics, and they framed a case of mis-declaration against the exporter and proposed to confiscate the goods and to impose penalty on the exporter for alleged violation of Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 113(d) of the Act with option for redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 36,000/-, and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the exporter under Section 114 of the Act. That authority, however, allowed the goods to be exported as per rules on pay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ular does not expressly say so. Ld. JDR, relying on Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 6th Edition, 1996, submits that any fiscal legislation imposing a liability is generally governed by the normal presumption that it is not retrospective. The law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. He submits that neither in the EXIM policy nor in the Policy Circular there is any express provision that enables one to treat the circular as having retrospective effect. Therefore, he submits, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the point has to be upheld. Referring to the facts of the case, ld. JDR submits that, admittedly, the subject goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y 1997-2002. Para 4.13 lays down that, if any question or doubt arises in respect of the interpretation of any provision contained in the policy, the said question or doubt shall be referred to the DGFT whose decision thereon shall be final and binding. Ld. JDR has submitted that the provisions at Sr. No. 25(a) under Product Code 89 in Appendix 28 (a) to the EXIM policy have to be considered as provisions of the Policy itself and, therefore, the clarification given by the DGFT in the Policy Circular under reference is a clarification covered by Para 4.13 of the EXIM Policy, which will be final and binding. Again, the moot question is whether the operation of the circular will extend into the past period beyond the date of issuance thereof. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X