9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 21-11-1981 be set aside on the following grounds: (a) Their licence No. P/E/K 0382014 dated 15-12-1980 was for packing material and the import of staple pins under bill of entry No. 429/9 per SS FINORTAT for 12 cases of staple pins valued at ₹ 29182/- was correctly covered by the licence as what was imported by them was the industrial staple pins while what was banned under Appendix 3 Sr. No. 622 and Appendix 4 Sr. No. 62 was the staple pin for stationery. (b) They have submitted samples of the two types of the pins and the catalogue of the goods imported by them to show that the goods are industrial staple pins and not stationery staple pins. (c) They have argued that under clarification No. 49/6/80-81/IPC/4264 dated 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any distinction of type or category. This ban is further repeated under Sr. No. 62 under Appendix 4 of the relevant policy book. Under para 5 of Appendix 17 of the policy book, it has been absolutely clear that import of an item appearing in Appendix 4 (absolute banned list) will not be permitted against R.E.P. licences entitled to import banned items except under certain conditions mentioned in the table appearing in Chapter 17. The staples are not mentioned in this table. It therefore implies that the import of staple pins is absolutely banned and is not permitted. This position is not affected by the entries at G. 2 in Appendix 17 which inter alia permits import of packing material. In view of the aforesaid legal position there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Bombay under bill of entry cash No. 1031 dated 3-1-1981. The department has contended that one clearance might have been error of judgment on the part of the Customs House and that it cannot serve as an precedent to the appellants. On the other hand, the department has submitted a copy of the order No. 4/10-34/817 dated 4-5-1981 of the Collector of Customs under which penal action has been taken in the case of import of staple pins by M/s. Jalaram Trading Co. Bombay. The appellants have argued that the analogy of the Collector s order dated 4-5-1981 is not applicable to the present instance as it covers staple pins MAX No. 10 which are admittedly for stationery use. Even if we were to ignore the Collector s order dated 4-5-1981, we find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Head A for Trimming and embellishments, the following : Therefore, what are permitted for import under the list attached with the licence are pins in the nature of trimmings and embellishments and not staple pins which are banned. Since staple pins are absolutely banned under Appendix 4, there is no question of the description of staple pins being included in the list attached to the licence. It is also significant to note that the appellants have claimed the import of staple pins for the purpose of packing. Had their interpretation been correct, the description of Pearl headed pins and pins of all types would have figured under heading C for packing materials which is included in the licence. As we have observed earlier, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
