Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Cc vs Shah Trading Co. on 13 December, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(64)ECR613(TRI.-CHENNAI)
ORDER
S. Kalyanam, Vice-President
1. This appeal is by the Department against the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, dated 26th May, 1989. Shri Arulswamy, the ld. DR submitted that in the present case, the respondent imported cassia. By issue of Public Notice No. 82 dated 29.11.1988, the goods were taken away from the OGL list and required a specific licence for import. Under the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has found that the respondent had not opened any irrecoverable letter of credit and even the shipment date indicated in the B/L as 28.11.1988 was incorrect and on verification it was found that the goods were actually shipped on 3/4.12.1988 after the publication of the Public Notice No. 82/ITC/88, dated 29.11.1988 issued by the Ministry of Commerce. The ld. DR further submitted that the Supreme Court in a latest case has held that the date of publication of Customs Notification in the Gazette Notification would be effective from the date of publication and not on the date when the Gazette is actually made available to the public at large. In the present case, the Public Notice in question was published in the Gazette of India on 29.11.1988 under Issue No. 256, and the goods were shipped only on 3/4.12.1988, thereby the finding in the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
2. Shri Gurumurthy, the ld. Counsel submitted that mere date of publication in the Gazette would not suffice and the date on which it is made available to the public at large is relevant.
3. We have gone through the records. The goods, as from the finding in the impugned order, were loaded in the ship on 3/4.12.1988. Admittedly no irrevocable letter of credit was opened by the respondent. The Public Notice in question, taking the goods away from the category of OGL and making it necessary to have a licence for import was published in the Gazette of India on 29.11.1988. Therefore, following the ruling of the Supreme Court cited above, we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside and the Department's appeal allowed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open Court.)