1988 (6) TMI 269

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Policy A.M. 82-83. The Customs objected to the clearance on the ground that the appellants have contravened one of the conditions of the O.G.L. import, namely, that they had not registered their contract with the Iron & Steel Controller, Calcutta within 15 days of entering into the contract with the foreign supplier. 3.  The Addl. Collector, who adjudged confiscation and fine in his order, observed that non-registration of the contract was a technical lapse. He held that the importation had been made without cover of a valid I.T.C. licence and therefore the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Having regard to his above finding, he ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....yed that the appeal may be rejected. 6.  I have considered the submissions made on both the sides and perused the available records. It was not disputed that the firm contract had been entered into with the foreign supplier before the date of Public Notice dated 22-7-1982. This contract was confirmed by the foreign supplier on 12th July, 1982. Thus at the time of entering into contract or on the date of confirmation of the contract the appellants were not required to register their contract with the Iron & Steel Controller, Calcutta. This requirement of registration of contract came to be incorporated by Public Notice dated 22-7-1982. According to the Public Notice, the contract had to be registered with the Iron & Steel Controller wi....