Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)

Ashish And Co-And Ors. vs Collector Of Customs on 24 March, 1986

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the REP licence produced by the appellants should be held as valid to cover import of Sodium Saccharine as held by this Bench, in the case of Ashish & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, in his Order No. 209/96-WRB, dated 29-1-1996. If the licence is held to be not valid to cover the import, whether fine and penalty needs to be modified ?
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Bombay Pharma Products vs Collector Of Customs on 5 December, 1994

7. We also agree with the learned DR that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bombay Pharma Products v. Collector of Customs reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 625 is distinguishable as it was based upon the construction of the entry 'seeds' in Appx. 17, as to whether it could cover all kinds of seeds. In that case, the Customs authorities had confiscated a consignment of poppy seeds as not covered by REP licence invoking the bar under Para 5 of Appx. 17 and held that poppy seeds are consumer goods falling under Appx. 2B and hence import was not permissible under REP lincence. The Tribunal took the view that although poppy seeds are consumer goods, they are 'seeds' covered by Appx. 17, entry G-2(1) of Col. 4(a) of Appx. 17 of the Policy. Therefore, all seeds, even if they are consumer goods, fall within the ambit of one of the exceptions to Condition No. 5 of Appx. 17, namely item specifically described for import under Col. 4 and therefore, the bar against import of seeds under REP licence by virtue of their being consumer goods, will not operate. The Tribunal held that the REP licence issued under 1985-88 Policy produced by the appellants was not valid for import of poppy seeds. This is not the situation in the present case.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1