SAV UDYOG VINIYOG LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the question which arises for consideration is whether the in shell almonds imported by the appellants were seeds/bulbs/mother plant germ plasm.

(2.) It appears that the appellants utilised replenishment licence for the import of this article. The licence was granted on the basis of the exports which had been made. The relevant entry in appendix 17 of the import control policy for the year 1985-88 was as follows: sl. Export product Import replenishment Materials permitted Remarks no. percentage for import 1 2 3 4 5 g. 2 other fresh fruits/ vegetables/vegetable seeds/flowers/ flower seeds :- (i) (a) Fresh fruits, 10% (a) Packing material, (1) in case of vegetables and namely, LDPE, HDPE, item (c) in flowers. Polypropylene, column 4, plastic pots, please grp roof lite-sheets, see para 8 of kraft, liner and 'general Conflating media, grape ditions in guard paper, kraft paper, this tissue paper for appendix. wrapping peat moss. (b) Sodium Metabi- sulphite (10%). (c) Chemicals appearing in Appendix 3 and used in cultivation/growth of fruits, vegetables and flowers, and freshening chemicals for fruits, vegetables and flowers. (d) Seeds/bulbs/mother plant germ plasm. (e) pearlite horticulture grade and vermiculate. (b) Individually 10% (a) Same as items (a) to (1) Same as quick frozen (e) against Sl. No. remark (1) in vegetables. G. 2 (i) (a) above. column 5 against Sl. No. G2 (i) (a) above.

(3.) The goods imported were not cleared on the ground that the in-shell almonds imported by the appellants were not seeds as contemplated by the aforesaid entry in appendix 17. Having been unsuccessful before the customs authorities who had levied a redemption fine of rs. 6 lakhs and additional penalty of Rs. 50,000. 00, the appellants filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The single judge dismissed the petition and an appeal was filed before the division bench. By the impugned judgment, the division bench came to the conclusion that what was imported by the appellants was not seeds. In this connection, the division bench observed as follows: