BENZEX LABS LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether Acetyl sulphanyl Chloride, hereinafter referred to as ASC occurring as Item 4 in Appendix 6, List 8, Part I of Import and Export Policy for the period from April, 1985 to March 1988 is the same as N-Acetyl Sulphanilyl Chloride hereinafter referred to as N-ASC, occurring in Item 276 in Appendix 3 Part A of the same Policy Book.

(2.) THE petitioner filed Bill of entry bearing No. 23009 dated 28-4-1988 through its clearing Agent for the clearance of ASC valued at Rs. 11, 26, 270/- C.I.F. and sought clearance of the subject goods under Open General Licence Appendix 6, Serial Number (1) read with Serial Number 4 of list 8, Part I of Import and Export Policy for 1985-88. THE respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner to release the subject goods under O.G.L. as according to him, they fall under N-ASC which require specific licence. THErefore the respondent ordered confiscation of the goods and levied a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs in lieu of confiscation. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent confiscating and levying Rs. 3 lakhs as fine in lieu of confiscation this writ petition is filed.

(3.) CONTENDING contra, Mr. P. Narasimhan, Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner on an earlier two occasions imported the very same ASC and the respondents treated the same, as N-ASC coming under Appendix-3 and that therefore his import of the chemical without licence was liable to confiscation. The petitioner took delivery of the goods after paying the fine under protest and the matters are pending in appeals before the Tribunal. While so, against the impugned order of the respondents without exhausting the statutory alternative remedies the petitioner has come to this Court and has filed the above writ petition. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy. On merits the learned counsel submitted that a reading of paragraphs 20 and 21(c) of the Policy will show that the respondent is right in treating the goods imported as one falling under Appendix 3. He further submitted that the order of the respondent is not without any basis, but strictly based on an opinion given by Dr. K. Rajagopalan, Professor and Head of the Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Madras and also on the basis of the chemical examination report of the Custom House Laboratory and that therefore the respondent is right in holding that the subject-goods would fall under Item 276 in Appendix 3. The respondent has the authority to interpret the import policy, as he is vested with such powers to interpret the policy according to the guidelines set out in the Policy Book. If the petitioner considers that the interpretation given by the respondent is not correct, the remedy open to the petitioner is to file an appeal and not to straightaway come to this Court by way of a writ petition.