NATIONAL EXPORTS Vs. COMMR. OF CUS. (PORT), KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. Shri Sukhendu Bhattacharya, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the import of betel nuts through Petrapole was restricted by the Notification 49/RE/2006 dated 20 -2 -2007. However, he states that the said Notification was offered for sale only on 21 -2 -2007 as per the information given to the ld. Advocate by the Department of Publication under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He also states that by virtue of the Honble Supreme Courts decision upholding CEGATs Order in the case of B. M. Thakkar & Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 445 (Tribunal), the date on which the Notification becomes available to the public would be the effective date and not the date of issue. Hence, he argues that the effective date for the change of the import policy has to be taken as 21 -2 -2007.

(2.) HE submits that as is seen from the copy of the relevant invoice that the term of delivery and payment was letter of credit in advance for which the remittance was made through ICICI Bank on 20 -2 -2007. He states that the appellant company is a small trader, yet to be established, and they had no information about the change in the policy and having paid the amount and remitted the same to the supplier, they had no control over the consignment, which was imported on 24 -2 -2007. He pleads that keeping in view the policy provision regarding transitional arrangements where irrevocable letter of credit has been opened before the effective date of change in the policy, the impugned goods should not have been confiscated and no penalty should have been imposed.

(3.) HEARD Shri J.A. Khan, ld. SDR, who supports the impugned order on the ground that the import has been made under the bill of entry dated 25 -2 -2007 by which time, the change in the policy has taken place and hence, the import was un -authorized.