Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
R.N. Rajan And Co. vs Collector Of Customs on 26 October, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995ECR415(TRI.-CHENNAI), 1995(77)ELT600(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER V.P Gulati, Member (T)
1. These appeals are against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. Under the impugned order, the learned adjudicating authority has ordered confiscation of Mace imported by the appellants and it has been allowed redemption on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 44,000/-
2. The learned Consultant for the appellants pleaded that while the adjudication was pending before the learned lower authority, the appellants had approached the Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, Madras for a clarification as to whether the goods namely Mace could be imported by the appellants or whether the same could be taken to be covered under the Negative List of Goods. He has pleaded that after the passing of the orders by the learned original authority, the appellants received the clarification from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, Madras, in the following terms :-
"With reference to the above, I am directed to state that since Mace does not figure in the Negative List of Imports of Export & Import Policy 1992-97, the same is freely importable without any restriction. You are also requested to refer paras 22 to 25 of the abovesaid policy in this connection. This was also confirmed by the CCI & E, New Delhi vide his letter No. 48(20)/92-97 IPC, dt. 15-5-1992."
This letter, he pleaded, had been placed before the learned lower authority. He has pleaded that this clarification of JCCI & E, Madras was based on the clarification given by the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports which has been referred to in the said letter. He pleaded that the learned adjudicating authority has merely observed that the clarification given by the JCCI & E was of a general nature and for that reason has refused to accept the same for the basis of the proceedings. He has observed that the learned lower authority should have called for a clarification given by the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, in respect of Mace, before deciding the matter.
3. The learned JDR of the Department has pleaded that the goods are consumer goods in nature and are therefore covered by the Negative List of Goods in Import and Export Policy, 1992-97. In regard to the clarification of the CCI & E, he has pleaded that he is not able to comment as the same was not before the learned lower authority.
4. I have considered the pleas made by both the sides. It is observed that the appellants had approached the licencing authorities for clarification as to whether Mace could be imported and since it was not specifically covered in the Negative List of Goods, the local office of the CCI & E has referred to a clarification given by the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports and has opined that Mace could be imported as the same was not specifically covered under the Negative List of Goods. It is observed that so far as the clarification of the CCI & E is concerned, in para 20 of the Import and Export Policy, it has been clarified that:
"If any question or doubt arises in respect of the interpretation of any provision in this Policy, the said question or doubt shall be referred to the Director General of Foreign Trade and his decision shall be final."
In the present case, it is seen that the CCI & E has given some opinion to the local licencing authorities and that opinion should have been called for for consideration of the appellant's pleas. The learned lower authority could have called for the letter of CCI & E referred to in the letter of the JCCI & E before passing the order. This has not been done. I therefore, hold that the learned lower authority's order is not proper and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned lower authority for de novo consideration and decision in the light of the above and also after affording the appellants personal hearing.