9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icence was issued under the Import Policy No. AM-73. The appellants had, pursuant to the said import licence, imported spare parts i.e. jolt valves, vibrator valves, squeeze valves and lift valves from Germany on 23rd March 1974 for their moulding machines installed at Jamshedpur. The total value of the goods imported was c.i.f. Rs. 56,389/- for which they had opened letter of credit with the Bank of Baroda who are, admittedly, authorised agents under the provisions of the FERA, 1973. On 9-7-1974 the Customs Authority held that the appellants had exceeded the limit under the import licence to the extent of Rs. 26, 389/- as the same were not covered by the subject licence on the ground that the appellants were allowed to import six items eac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,500/- on the appellants after confirming the finding that there was contravention of the FERA provisions viz. Sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the FERA. The said orders have been challenged in this First Appeal. 3.Mr. Divan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, contended that there was no FERA violation at all. He submitted that the goods in question were imported under the import licence and the value of the said imported goods was paid through the authorised agents i.e. Bank of Baroda. He further pointed out that the foreign exchange was acquired for the purpose of import of the aforesaid goods i.e. jolt valves, vibrator valves, squeeze valves and lift valves under the import licence dated 9-8-1972 issued to the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the licence subject to the condition that the value of each item should not exceed Rs. 5,000/-. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that they had imported only six items of valves, as per the permission but the value of each item exceeded Rs. 5,000/- and, therefore, they had to pay penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act. However, there was no contravention to any of the FERA provisions, much less, sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 8 of the FERA as the foreign exchange was utilised by the Appellants for the purpose for which it was acquired and the goods which were imported were of the kind, quality and quantity specified by them at the time of acquisition of the foreign exchange while opening the letter of credit wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were prohibited. Nonetheless, it is not pointed out that the foreign exchange acquired was not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. In fact, the foreign exchange was acquired for the import of the valves which alone were imported by the appellants. 5.Mr. Toraskar, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents also has not been able to point out as to how the appellants can be said to have contravened the provisions of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the FERA, 1973. 6.Mr. Divan relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Prasad v. Director of Enforecement reported in AIR 1962 S.C. 1764 in which it is held that the provisions under the FERA are quasi-criminal in character and it is the duty of the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
