CONTINENTAL EXPORTERS Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the reasons stated in the petition, the delay in filing the supplementary appeals are condoned and since one common appeal was filed against the impugned order initially, within time.

(2.) THE appeals are directed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Madras dated 10.12.1993 levying a find of Rs. 15,000/ - under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, in respect of each B/E relating to the import of staple pins governed by the Import and Export Policy AM 1992 -97. Shri Krishna Srinivasan, the ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that in respect of import of identical goods governed by the identical import policy, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of East West Exporters v Assistant Collector of Customs, clearly held that the goods in question does not figure either in the, negative list or in the sensitive list of imports of the relevant policy in question, and for the goods in question, there are no restrictions for import and they can be imported lawfully without a licence, subject to payment of duty. The Madras High Court further held that in those circumstances, the goods in question were not liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act and the ld. Counsel submitted that in regard to an identical issue in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras v. R.K. Traders, Madras, the Single -member Bench of the Tribunal by Order No. 419/95 dated 5.7.1995 referring to and following the ratio of the ruling of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court cited supra held that the goods are permissible for import under OGL and not confiscable. It was, therefore, submitted that on the basis of the ratio of the ruling of the Division Bench of Madras High Court, the impugned order of the Collector holding contra, is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.

(3.) SHRI Victor Thyagaraj, the ld. SDR submitted that subsequent to the ruling of the Division Bench of Madras High Court, the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade issued a clarification by his communication dated 24.12.1993, to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, that the goods in question would fall within the category of consumer goods and therefore, covered under the negative list of the Policy AM 1992 -97 requiring a licence for the import under the relevant licensing policy. The ld. SDR further submitted that if the clarification of the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade had been brought to the notice of the High Court, possibly the High Court might have taken a different view and, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be sustained on the basis of the clarification of the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade.