S BALU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-company is a Small Scale Industry engaged in the manufacture of Solidaire Television sets. The petitioner was granted a licence on 18-3-1981 for the import of VTR Deck mechanism, electronic components and raw materials under Appendix V of the 1981 Policy Book by the controller of Imports and Exports, Madras. The 5th respondent, by his letter dated 20-5-1981 fixed the capacity limit of the production at 500 numbers per annum of VTR/VCR. The petitioner imported the goods allegedly in accordance with the licence issued to him. The third respondent, however, refused permission to clear the goods and instead issued a show cause notice dated 12-8-1981 under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, hereinafter called the Act. By a letter dated 10-12-1981, the Assistant Collector of Customs requested the petitioner to make arrangements for a detailed examination of the consignment by the Customs Department before the adjudication proceedings. After such inspection, the 4th respondent issued a letter dated 21-12-1981 stating that the petitioner had imported Video Tape Deck, raw materials and components like sub-assemblies of electronic components for VTR/VCR, when actually the petitioner had no licence to import such items. A supplementary show cause was issued under Section 124 of the Act on 17-2-1982. The petitioner sent, a reply on 23-2-1982 reiterating that the sub-assembles imported by them fell under the scope of components subassemblies of Entry 486(2) of Appendix 5 of AM 81 and therefore, the imports were covered by valid licence. By an order dated 11-3-1982, the third respondent confiscated the goods under Section 111(2) of the Act read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The petitioner-company was given an option to redeem the goods for home consumption on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,75,000/-. There was a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent. By an order dated 24-7-1982, the Appellate Authority held that the confiscation and levy of penalty were valid and proper. The Appellate Authority, however, modified the assessment directing only the invoice value to be adopted. The petitioner, after clearing the goods on payment of the said fine and penalty, has come forward with this writ petition to quash the order of the second respondent dated 24-7-1982 and for a further direction to refund the redemption fine and personal penalty.

(2.) Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, raises the following two points: (1) Respondents 2 and 3 have not taken into consideration the contention of the petitioner that the following items were not imported and without such items, it cannot be alleged that a complete VCR had been imported:--

(3.) In view of certain decisions cited before me, and which decisions were not cited before the second and third respondents, the learned Senior counsel argues that it may be necessary to remand the case back [to] the authorities for a reconsideration of the whole issue. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents accepts the facts that these decisions were not considered by the authorities, but however maintains that the orders of the second and third respondents are perfectly valid. After going through the said authorities, I am satisfied that the case has to be remanded back to the authorities. I will therefore restrict myself to indicate the ratio of the said judgments without expressing my view on the merits of the instant case.