9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dix 17 against Entry at S. No. (IX) Para 188 of EX1M Policy 1985-88. Serial No. (IX) of product group 'O' of Appendix 17 reads as under - "(IX). Pearl/headed pins/stapling pings and Industrial Sapling Machines." The clearance was not allowed on REP licence as the Custom House Bombay had a clarification dated 11-3-1987 from Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The letter read as follows : "Please refer to your letter No. 7111/G(h)56/80-Appg/144, dated 4-1-1987, on the subject mentioned above. 2. In this connection, it is clarified that against REP licences issued for export product Group 'O' of App. 17 of the Import & Export Policy, 1985-88 (Vol. 1), only those staple pins are allowed import which are used as an item of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The appellants have sought clearance thereof on REP "licence on the ground that the same are used in the garment industry. However, in this context the clarification given by the D.G.F.T vide letter dated 11-3-1987 is very unambiguous. It reads as under : "only those stapling pins are allowed import which are used as an item of Trimming and Embellishments in the manufacture of export product. The Stapling Pins, which are used as stationery items are not permitted for import against the export product under Group 'O'." It is not the case of the appellants that they are using the impugned staple pins as items of embellishment. Obviously, the same are being used only as a stationery item and this certainly does not bring them within the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a clearance being effected and a practice being prevalent in the Department is to be upheld. The Tribunal in the case of Somjit Enterprise v. CC, 1993 (63) E.L.T. 119 (Tri) (Paras 5 to 7) has held "5. The learned Consultant, Shri B.B. Chakraborty appearing for the appellants contended that it is now an admitted case that the Customs Authority had allowed import of such staple pins during the previous years and it is an established past practice of the Custom House to allow such imports. In that view of the matter, the appellants acted bona fide and the fact that C.C.I. & E. has given a clarification at a later date, is not sufficient to hold that the imports of such goods are unauthorised. In this connection, he placed reliance on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he dispute should be resolved in favour of the subject..............." It is, thus, clear that when C.C.I. & E. has given a clarification the same should have been informed to the general public who are importing the goods in question and they should have made clear as to what types of goods could not be allowed. It is, further, seen that even the Customs Department was doubtful about the interpretation of the Policy and it cannot be said that there were wants of bona fides on the part of the appellants. When there is such a confusion the benefit should always go to the citizens in this regard. In the case of M/s. Manoranjan v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot, the West Regional Bench in Order No. 1409/90-WRB, dated 28-8-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since in the case of Somjit Enterprise, the Bench of this Tribunal for import of same impugned item viz. stationery staple pins under same EXIM Policy concluded the want of bona fides and bound the Custom to their past practice and allowed the appeal after setting aside the confiscation and penalty. We find no reason to come to a different view in the present import. (b) The entity in the Vaghani Brothers, Bombay v. CC., 1983 (12) E.L.T. 613, relied by the ld. D.R. as it appears from Para 2 of the decision cited by the ld. DR were different. In that case, the Bench, after examination of the catalogue, which showed that the pins therein were for use with a carton stitcher which could be screwed to a work bench and the claim was for import o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bombay would go to indicate that Customs Department also had a doubt practice. No Public Notice of change in practice has been issued. It is found that Custom Appraising Manual Vol. II Chapter 5 Para 114(i) provides - "(i) Import of goods on basis of previous clearance, where identical consignments have been cleared previously without objection from the Customs under the same licence description (or under OGL) no penalty is to be imposed provided the Collector of Customs is satisfied that the bona fides of the importer are beyond question. However, each case should be examined on merits. Such lenient treatment should not be given as a general rule, since it is quite possible for an importer to get a small pilot consignment passed thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
