CONTINENTAL CORPN. Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the party's appeal against the impugned order dated 24.1.1995 of Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, praying for setting aside the same, and to hold that the imported goods is not covered under Negative List with consequential relief of refund of fine and penalty.

(2.) SHRI Anil Balani, the learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that import is of May, 1993, and para 156 of 1992 -97 Policy applies. Raw material imported has multipurpose use. Only crude drugs and consumer goods are restricted. Mere crude drugs is not sufficient to come under that category. As per past practice, as per the additional Commissioner, Section 111(d) of Customs Act is not applicable. is cited in support of the contention that past practice is binding on the department. Fine and penalty should have been quashed in the impugned order. The Ld. SDR Shri C.P. Rao, has argued that the appellant is a Trader, not actual user, literature indicates that imported goods is used in both Ayurvedic and Unani. P.N. 117/31 is binding. Item imported is not in its enclosed list. Assistant Collector has examined in detail, and his order is correct. Final use of imported goods is not under the Control of Trader. Penalty is not relevant, for market value, which is relevant only for redemption fine. Impugned order is in correct approach. Case law is not clear about confiscation. Department might have appealed against the order of Additional Commissioner. In the reply it is urged mat no appeal is filed by department. Imported goods is not a consumer goods. It is not covered by Public Notice. No licence is required.

(3.) POINT for consideration is whether there are sufficient and satisfactory grounds to set aside the impugned order? My finding is in the Negative.