PURVI ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Additional Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Madras, dated 30.12.1988.

(2.) THE material facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows : One NK Yahya Gani & Co. a registered export house had secured 11 REP licences and the same were got endorsed by it for the import of several items including Populated Printed Circuit Board after making necessary application to the DGTD, New Delhi, for endorsement in terms of paragraph 51(iii) of the Import and Export Policy, 1985-88. THE said licences being transferable, the petitioner got the above REP licences transferred in its favour by NK Yahya Gani and Co. Since one of the items endorsed and permitted for import under the said REP licence is populated printed circuit board and since the petitioner was in need of the said material as accessories required by it for the manufacture of VCR manufactured-by it under the brand name 'CONTACT', it got the REP licences transferred particularly in the light of the public notice dated 7-9-1988 which made REP licences endorsed for import of non-OGL capital goods as freely transferable without actual user condition. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner imported 300 pieces of populated printed circuit board which shall hereinafter be referred to as P.P.C.B. THE goods arrived by air in November 1988 and necessary bill of entry was filed by the petitioner's clearing agent on 21-11-1988. THE Customs Authorities had not assessed the bill of entry and permitted clearance of the imported goods. THErefore, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P. 15764 of 1988 forissue of a writ of mandamus directing the Customs authorities to assess the bill of entry dated 21-11-1988. This Court passed an order on 23-12-1988 directing the respondents to assess the bill of entry within a week and stating that the question of release of the goods would depend upon the assessement to be made. THEreafter, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 29-12-1988 stating that the goods have been imported contrary to the provisions imposed by Clause 3 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 read with Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. A personal hearing was given on 30-12-1988 by the Additional Collector of Customs and the petitioner was given an opportunity to put forth its contention. Rejecting the contention of the petitioner, the Additional Collector found that the goods imported are populated printed circuit boards containing several printed circuit interconnected and these are mere sub-assemblies and as such, the goods under importation are interconnected sub-assemblies and these are not covered by the import licence produced. Ultimately, he passed an order directing confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 1, 96, 920 CIF under Sec. 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sec. 111(m) of the Customs Act. However, an option was given to the importers to redeem the same for home consumption on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2, 00, 000 and also on payment of duty at the appropriate rate. A penalty of Rs. 20, 000 was also imposed under Section 112 of the Act. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders have been passed without any basis whatsoever and that the Additional Collector of Customs was not competent to say that the goods imported are not PPCB. No expert opinion was obtained in this regard and the impugned order does not indicate as to why he has come to the said conclusion. The learned counsel relied on certain printed pamphlets relating to the VCRs and PPCB and submitted that the so-called sub-assembly is part of PPCB and that though all the circuits found in the PPCB together form the circuit board, there is nothing to indicate that any new material has been introduced in the board, import of which is not permissible. On the question of alternative remedy, the appeal to the Special Bench of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal is not an effective one, since it is not competent to interpret the classification of goods and that the petitioner will not be able to get any interim order for the release of goods.