ANIL ASSOCIATES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel on both sides in this reference and we propose to confine this order only to one relevant aspect that is really germanes as we do not consider it necessary to embark upon any detailed debate with regard to the four questions that have been referred to the Court in so far as it is the same issue that has been split up in different forms. Secondly, while the departmental forums were obliged to examine and record findings on all issues that fell for determination such as vexed questions relating to value etc, we find it unnecessary to reexamine those aspects because they are really a factual determination on which the Tribunal is the ultimate fact finding authority. What ultimately survives is the short question as to firstly whether the Tribunal was justified in having accepted the department's view that the importation in question required a specific licence and that the special import licence produced by the patty was not valid and secondly whether, assuming the conclusion on the first issue is in the affirmative a personal penalty and redumption fine was warranted.

(2.) THERE is absolutely no dispute with regard to the facts in this case, namely that the importer in this case had imported a consignment of Ani-seeds which was sought to be cleared through the Customs Authority at Bangalore, We again refrain from going into an considerable debate regarding the value of this consignment because the Additional Commissioner after assessing the material before him has accepted the CIF value at Rs. 2,17,810/- and there is really no ground on which this figure requires to be reviewed. The real dispute centers round the short question as to whether the customs authorities at Bangalore were justified in refusing to permit clearance of this consignment despite the fact that the party possessed a special import licence which cover importation of goods of a prevalent value but which was not a specific licence issued for the import of Ani-seed. The importer's learned Counsel submitted before us that his clients had valid grounds to assume that the licence which they possessed would be a valid licence for the present importation and among other aspects, what he submitted was that they have produced documentary evidence of the fact that a similar consignment coveted by the same import policy period has been cleared on the basis of a SIL by the customs authorities at Madras. At the Bar, another document was produced before us indicating that even in the case of a previous order a similar consignment was cleared by the authorities on a SIL and it is his submission that the importers had absolutely no ground to believe that the authorities would hold up this consignment on a technical ground that it require a specific licence.

(3.) THE real difficulty arises from the fact that the entry in questionvery clearly stipulates, as far this commodity is concerned, that it requires a specific licence which by implication would indicate that the SIL will not cover it. With regard to the repeated contention that the authorities had permitted the clearance of identical commodities during the same period of time on a SIL and that therefore, by virtue of the principle of uniform application of the law, that the petitioners could not be penalised for demanding identical treatment, mr. Haranahalli, learned Counsel who represents the Department submitted that the Court will have to firmly apply the law and not give effect to the wrong manner in which the authorities have given effect to it. It is his submission that the court will have to take into consideration the possibility of either an error or misapplication of the law for whatever reason, and uphold the general principle that one mistake or one error or even a wrong practice cannot create a precedent or a right in an affected party to insist that a wrong precedent should be continued. Undoubtedly this is a well settled principle of law and even though we will certainly take into consideration the fact that perhaps the importers were led to believe that their licence did cover this particular consignment for purposes of penalty etc. , it would be incorrect and impossible for us to hold that the customs authority at Bangalore, even assuming that their counter parts at Chennai have committed an error, are precluded from applying the law correctly and that they will have to follow the wrong practice adopted by their counterparts. Consequently it will be necessary for us to uphold the view that the detention of the consignment was justified even if the same turns out to be for virtually technical reasons.