COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. M/S. SAMRAT INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, has filed this original petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P5 order dated 15.7.1996, passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as the "CEGAT" for short), whereby the CEGAT declined to condone the delay of 13 days in filing an application for reference, filed by the petitioner under sub-section (1) of section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short). The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) M/s. Samrat Industries, the first respondent herein imported 1800 MT of rape seed having a declared value of Rs. 75,11,427/- from France and filed a Bill of Entry No. 590 dated 31.8.1987 for clearance of the goods. The first respondent also produced 45 numbers of REP licences issued against export product GP(2)(1)(a)/G-19 of Appendix 17 of the Import Policy 1985-88. The licences produced were valid for the import of seeds, bulbs, mother plants etc. The first respondent claimed that the REP licences were valid for import of rape seed as per paragraph 70(2) and paragraph 76 of the Import Policy 1985-88 and that they have complied with the requirement of paragraph 70(2) by informing the canalizing agency about it. The first respondent claimed that the term "seeds" occurring in the description of the licence would cover rape seed also. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, took the stand that as rape seed is specifically mentioned in Appendix V, Part B it falls within the purview of paragraph 197(2) and paragraph 75 of the Import Policy and inasmuch as the requirements of paragraph 76 have not been complied with, the licences produced were not valid for import of the goods and the goods are liable to confiscation under section 111B of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947. The Collector of Customs, Cochin accordingly issued Ext.P1 order dated 23.9.1987 confiscating the goods. He however, gave the first respondent importer an option to redeem the goods after paying a fine of Rs. 20,00,000/- and imposed on the first respondent importer a personal penalty of Rs. 7,50,000/- under section 112 of the Act.

(3.) The first respondent importer canvassed the correctness of Ext.P1 order by filing an appeal before the CEGAT. The first respondent contended before the CEGAT that rape seed is covered by the description of seeds in Appendix 17 of the Import Policy 1985-88 and in the REP licences produced by them. By a majority decision the CEGAT held by Ext.P2 order dated 28.12.1995 that the penal action taken against the first respondent importer was not warranted. The appeal was allowed and Ext.P1 order was set aside. The petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P3 application dated 19.6.1996 before the CEGAT under section 130(1) of the Act praying that the question of law involved as to interpretation of the Import Policy may be referred to the Hon'ble High Court. The reference application was accompanied by Ext.P4 application dated 19.6.1996 to condone the deify of 12 days in filing the reference application. The first respondent importer did not enter appearance though notice of the application to condone the delay in filing the application for reference was served on them. Notwithstanding the said fact, the CEGAT dismissed the application to condone the delay as also the reference application by Ext.P5 order dated 15.7.1996 holding that the delay has not been properly explained. Hence this original petition.