Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Supreme Court overturns confiscation orders, directs refund to appellants in canalized items case</h1> <h3>B. Vijay Kumar & Co. Etc. Versus Collector Of Central Excise and Customs</h3> B. Vijay Kumar & Co. Etc. Versus Collector Of Central Excise and Customs - 1991 (5) JT 86, 1991 (1) Scale 33 Issues involved: Appeal against the judgment and order of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty for importing canalized items under additional import license.The appellants imported canalized items under additional import license granted pursuant to a Supreme Court order. The Customs Authorities and Union of India interpreted the order as authorizing import of canalized items. The Principal Collector Customs Central Excise informed about the permissibility of import of canalized items. The appellants entered into a contract for import but faced penalty and confiscation orders upon arrival of goods. The Tribunal found a wrong understanding of the law by all parties involved, set aside penalties, but upheld redemption fine due to lack of bona fide action by the appellants.The parties referred to various court decisions and orders by Customs Authorities and Union Government. The Supreme Court found that the appellants imported goods bona fide under the additional import license as per the court's orders. The Tribunal's findings on the appellants' bona fide actions were accepted. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside confiscation and redemption fine orders, and directed the authorities to refund the redemption amount already paid by the appellants within one month.This judgment emphasizes the special facts and circumstances of the case and clarifies that it should not be considered a precedent. No costs were awarded in this matter.