TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (11) TMI 237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case necessary for the disposal of the present appeal can be briefly stated as below. 4. The respondents imported a consignment of 3474.416 M.T. of lard and filed two Bills of Entry for clearance of the aforesaid consignment. The respondents claimed clearance of the consignment in question under OGL Appendix 10(1) of Import Policy AM-1982-83 against Export house additional licence dated 30.1.82. The respondents also claimed the clearance in terms of para 187(C) read with Appendix 10(1) of the Import Policy AM 1981-82. A show cause notice was issued to the importers alleging that under entry No. 41 of Appendix 8 of Import & Export Policy AM 1982-83 tallow of any animal origin including mutton tallow is canalised and lard which is a fat extracted from the tissues of pigs, hogs etc. and hence import of this item against this additional licence as OGL item cannot be permitted. 5. In the adjudication proceedings before the Collector of Customs, the respondents referred to various technical books pointing out that the word 'tallow' refers to only fat of bovine animals and the item imported, namely lard is the fat rendered from fresh clean, sound fatty tissues from hogs and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 did not take into account the opinion given by the office of the CCIE but passed the impugned order contrary to the clarification given by the CCIE. In this connection he took us through the provision of Para 222 of the Import Policy, which specifically provides for the binding nature of the clarification given by the CCIE. He also argued that the date of adjudication being 20-6-83, the clarification dated 17-5-83 from the CCIE was before the Collector and it has not been considered by the Collector despite the fact that as per the Policy, it is binding. In this connection he also cited the Delhi High Court judgment reported in E.L.T. 1987 (29) page 753, wherein the High Court had held that in the matter of interpretation of ITC Policy with regard to the provisions of the licence as well as the additional licence, the clarification given by the CCIE is legally binding. In the circumstances, it was pleaded by Shri Mondal that the order passed by the Collector without taking into account the clarification received from the CCIE is bad in law and is required to be set aside. On being asked that in the context of the fact that the goods have already been cleared, what specific relief....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gory of fat of pigs, hogs etc. When the learned advocate's attention was drawn to the arguments that the clarification, which the Collector sought for from CCIE was received well before the adjudication, which the Collector has not taken cognizance of the pleaded that the Collector must have taken this into account and because of the fact that it is marked secret, he has not specifically referred to this in his adjudication order. All the same he has considered the other view also and after satisfying himself that lard is distinct from tallow both commercially as well as technically, he has passed the impugned order. Since he is the final authority to decide even as per 325 of the Hand Book, his order cannot be stated to be illegal or improper. 10. We have considered the arguments from both sides. We propose to dispose of this appeal on the short point, namely whether the Collector is justified in ignoring the clarification given by the CCIE in his letter dated 17-5-83 and whether the department's grievance on the ground is justified. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the letter dated 17-5-83 written by Shri Takhat Ram, Jt. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports New ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he function of the licensing authority. It was not for the Customs authorities to interpret the licensing policy. If the licensing authority interprets the policy one way and the Customs authorities take a contrary view, there will be a conflict between the two authorities, with the result that the importer would be put to considerable inconvenience." 11. In the context of the aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court and also the view held by the Delhi High Court referred to by the Departmental representative, we are inclined to agree with him that the Collector cannot brush aside the clarification received from the licensing authority especially when it has been received well before the adjudication and also the Collector himself has sought for the clarification. The learned advocate's arguments by citing the Calcutta High Court's judgment has also been considered. In that case, there was an established practice of importation of rapeseeds under REP license for seeds, bulbs etc. The Customs authorities have contended that a telex message was received on a particular date from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports clarifying that rapeseed is not covered by shopping ....