9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was mentioned as P/K/L/M/2816076/C/XX/71/X/79, dated 27-3-1979 and Telegraphic Release Advice No. S/32-Bom.-Kandla-3/80C dated 5-11-1980 issued by the Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay. The licence was held in the name of M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore. The goods were assessed provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the goods were released on payment of duty of ₹ 5,45,153.40 on 13-11-1980. For reasons set out in the show cause notice dated 14-4-1981 issued under Section 130 of the Customs Act, the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad appeared to be of the view that the release of the goods against the aforesaid licence and release advice was not correct, legal or proper. Some other grounds were also set out in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : (a) The licence had not been transferred by United Breweries, the licence holder, to Patel Impex, the Letter of Authority (L.A.) holder; (b) The L.A. holder was eligible to get all the facilities under para 174 of the Policy for 1980-81; (c) The Export House, the licence holder, was authorised under para 382 of the Policy to appoint any person as his agent for arranging the imports permitted by the licence; (d) The licence had been issued prior to the imposition of the ban by Public Notice No. 48, dated 9-12-1980 and the said notice could not affect the goods duly imported; (e) The ratio of the Supreme Court s judgment in Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - AIR 1971 S.C. 704 squarely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Palm stearin/Palm Kernel oil and stated that the said amendment shall be deemed to have been made in the said Import Policy at the appropriate place. Now, it was settled law, the Counsel continued, that a Public Notice amending the Import Policy, had no retrospective operation. In this context, the Supreme Court judgment in the Bharat Barrel Drum Mfg. Co. case and the Bombay High Court judgment in Stretch Fibres case (earlier referred to) were cited. The goods in the present case were imported and cleared. Before the date of coming into force of the ban imposed by Public Notice of 9-12-1980. Even a statutory notification could not have retrospective effect (1970 AIR 755). The Counsel then referred to Central Government s Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n export house and the appellants were Letter of Authority holders, they could be entitled to the benefits of para 382 of the Policy. 8. Shri Jain did not make any submission with regard to the Central Government, and Board s orders cited by Shri Hidayatullah. 9. In his reply, Shri Hidayatulla cited Supreme Court s decision in the case of Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills - 1978 E.L.T. 375 and made the point that so long as the authority did not have power to make retrospective amendments, it could only make prospective amendments. 10. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. We shall first deal with the effect of the amending notice No. 48 of 9-12-1980. The notice, on the face of it, does not indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purposes of Notification dated 15-9-1962 which it amended. This was despite the fact that the notification of 16-2-1963, in terms, said that it shall be deemed to have taken effect from 17-8-1962. The Court further held that the Central Excise law did not confer any retrospective rule making power on Government. In the Stretch Fibre case (Misc. Petition No. 1419 of 1979 decided on 9-10-11 January, 1980 by the Bombay High Court), the matter was about certain import replenishment and other benefits under the Import Policy for registered exporters as were permissible on the date of registered contracts for export with overseas buyers coupled with certain duty benefits. These were sought to be subsequently restricted. Following the ratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants would be entitled to import the goods. On this point, the Collector has recorded in his impugned order as follows :- During the course of personal hearing on 16-6-1981 the Counsel furnished a photostat copy of letter of authority dated 6-8-1980 issued by M/s. United Breweries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore authorising their clients to import goods and to open a Letter of Credit and make remittance of foreign exchange against their licence No. 2816076 to the extent of about ₹ 24,13,546.77 with the specific mention that this letter of authority has been issued as per the provisions contained in Chapter 1 para 6 of the Hand-Book of Import and Export Procedure 1979-80. The photostat copy of the licence shows that United Breweries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
