1986 (12) TMI 47 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Customs Fines; Appeals Not Dismissed as Time-Barred, Import Licenses Ruled Invalid.

JAIN EXPORTS (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND C. EX, AHMEDABAD

JAIN EXPORTS (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND C. EX, AHMEDABAD - 1988 (33) E.L.T. 199 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal.2. Validity of Import Licenses.3. Quantum of Redemption Fine.4. Time-barred Appeals.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal:The appeals were initially filed with the North Regional Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. However, the learned SDR protested regarding the jurisdiction, leading to the transfer of the appeals to the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal.2. Validity of Import Licenses:The core issue was whether refined industrial coconut oil was permitted to be imported under the additional licenses submitted by the appellants or whether the goods were banned as per Appendix 9 of the Import Policy. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad, confiscated the consignments, arguing that the import licenses were invalid and that the goods were canalized items meant to be imported only by the State Trading Corporation (STC).The appellants contended that they acted on the clarification from the STC and previous orders from the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Government of India, which indicated that industrial coconut oil was not a canalized item. However, the Delhi High Court upheld the Collector's decision, affirming that both edible and non-edible coconut oils were canalized items under the Import Policy for the relevant years.3. Quantum of Redemption Fine:The Collector imposed fines of Rs. 2 crores and Rs. 3 crores on the two consignments, respectively. The appellants argued that these fines were excessive and not justified, especially given the past practice of allowing similar imports without such heavy fines. They cited previous decisions where fines were either not imposed or significantly lower.The learned SDR for the respondent argued that the fines were appropriate given the deliberate violation of the Import Control Regulations and the substantial profits the appellants stood to gain from the illegal imports. The Delhi High Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal to determine the appropriate quantum of fine, considering all relevant facts and circumstances.4. Time-barred Appeals:The appeals were filed on 22-2-1985, well beyond the statutory period after the Collector's orders dated 17-12-1982 and 18-12-1982. The issue of whether the appeals were time-barred was not initially raised by the respondent but was considered by the Tribunal.Member (Technical) held that the appeals were time-barred under Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act and should be dismissed. Member (Judicial), however, opined that since the High Court had remitted the matter to the Tribunal, the question of limitation should not bar the appeals.Final Judgment:The matter was referred to a larger bench due to the difference of opinion between the two members of the West Regional Bench. The larger bench concluded that the appeals could not be rejected as time-barred since the High Court had remitted the matter to the Tribunal. However, on the substantive issue of the quantum of redemption fine, the larger bench agreed with Member (Technical) that the fines imposed by the Collector should not be reduced.Conclusion:The appeals for reduction in redemption fines were rejected, and the fines imposed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad, were upheld.