JAIN EXPORTS PVT LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal, New Delhi, dated 5/12/1986. In spite of notice to the respondents, no counter-affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

(2.) The petitioners imported several consignments of industrial coconut oil under the import licence granted to them. The Collector of Customs (Bombay) cleared the goods without any objection but two consignments of 'industrial coconut oil' were confiscated by the Collector of Customs (Kandla Port) and he imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 5 crores against the petitioners on the assumption that the imported goods were a canalised item. The petitioners challenged the order of the Collector of confiscation by a writ petition before the Delhi High court on a number of grounds including the ground that the 'industrial coconut oil' was not a canalised item as it was not included in the expression 'coconut oil' as mentioned under entry 5 Appendix 9 of the Import Policy of 1980-81. A Full bench of the High court by majority held that 'industrial coconut oil' was included within the expression 'coconut oil' and as such the same was canalised item, it could not be imported by the petitioners. The High court. further held that the Collector of Customs (Kandia) had jurisdiction to confiscate the goods and to release the same to the petitioners by imposing redemption fine. As regards the question of quantum of redemption fine the High court directed the Appellate tribunal to consider the same in appeal. Pursuant to the order of the High court theappeal against the order of the Collector was entertained and heard by the appellate tribunal, Bombay. There was difference of opinion between two members of the tribunal at Bombay, the appeal was then referred to a full bench of the tribunal at Delhi. The full bench of Appellate tribunal. at New Delhi considered the matter and passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal on the question of reduction of the quantum of redemption fine.

(3.) To complete the necessary facts, it is relevant to note that against the order of the Delhi High court the petitioners filed special leave petition before this court challenging the findings of the High court that the 'industrial coconut oil' was included within the entry 'coconut oil'. This court affirmed the order of the full bench of the Delhi High court. The judgment of this court is reported as M/s Jain Exports (P) Ltd. v. Union of India. While repelling petitioners' contention of estoppel based on the representation made by the State Trading Corporation, Union government and other authorities of the central government that 'industrial coconut oil' was not a canalised item, this court observed, that, those facts and circumstances were relevant for determining the quantum of redemption fine which is to be considered by the tribunal in terms of the directions of the High court. This court did not enter into the question of quantum of redemption fine instead it left the matter open for consideration by the Appellate tribunal according to the directions of the high court. These directions are contained of the judgment of Sachar, J. which was the majority judgment. The judgment is reported in Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. The learned Judge observed thus: