Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether goods imported under a valid emergency spares licence could be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act on the ground that the importer utilised the licence value for one specified item and allegedly acted contrary to the spirit of the import policy.
Analysis: The licence was found to be valid and unchallenged, and it did not impose any value or quantity restriction item-wise. The policy provision relied upon by the revenue did not require allocation of demand item-wise in the manner suggested. In the absence of any reservation in the licence, the customs authorities were bound to act according to the licence conditions. The objection that the appellants were only L.A. holders was not entertained because it had not been raised at the earlier stage.
Conclusion: Confiscation under Section 111(d) was not legally sustainable, and the import could not be denied merely on the basis of the authorities' view of the spirit of the policy.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, with consequential relief granted.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an import licence is valid and unqualified on quantity or value for individual items, customs authorities cannot refuse clearance or confiscate the goods by invoking only the perceived spirit of the policy.