(1.) The petitioners imported a consignment of Lauryl Alcohol with C.I.F. value of Rs. 2,62,206/-. The petitioners filed Bill of Entry for home consumption and sought clearance against Appendix 6(1) of AM 1985-88 policy. The Customs Authorities felt that the clearance under OGL was not tenable and the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act. The petitioners were served with a show cause notice and after giving personal hearing, the Deputy Collector of Customs came to the conclusion that Lauryl Alcohol is covered by entry 375(a) of Appendix 3A of the Import Policy. The claim of the petitioners that since the letters of credit were opened before the introduction of the entry and therefore the petitioners are entitled to clearance under OGL was turned down. The Deputy Collector of Customs has held that the goods were shipped on June 27, 1985 and on that date the goods were covered under Appendix 3A and therefore could not be allowed clearance under OGL. On the strength of this finding, the Deputy Collector by order dated August 13, 1985 directed confiscation of the imported goods but gave option to the petitioners to redeem the same on payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
(2.) The petitioners preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the legality of the order. Pending the petition, the petitioners also preferred Appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The Collector of Customs by order dated October 29, 1985 dismissed the appeal but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2,000/-. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that notification making amendment was published and the notification provides that the same should be deemed to have been made with effect from March 1, 1985 although the notification was dated June 13, 1985. In view of the deeming provisions the appellate authority held that the petitioners cannot import under OGL.
(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the view taken by the two authorities below is erroneous. It was urged that it is not permissible to hold that the amendment should be given retrospective effect. The submission is correct and deserves acceptance. The amendment cannot be given retrospective effect unless specifically so provided. In these circumstances, in our judgment, the orders passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs confiscating the goods and which was confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay on October 29, 1985 are required to be set aside.