TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (4) TMI 224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petition, viz. Writ Petition No. 1458 of 1979 was filed in this Court by N. Mehta & Co. This latter position was allowed on the 26th November 1982 and it was held that the view taken by the Department that the petitioners were not entitled to the certificates of export house on the ground that they had exported only diamonds and the exports were diversified and hence were not entitled to the certificate of Export House, was erroneous. Following the decision in Writ Petition No. 1458 of 1979, the petitioners' Writ Petition No. 1501 of 1981 in the Delhi High Court and various similar petitions were allowed. The Department carried the matter to the Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 1423 of 1984,wherein by judgment and order dated the 18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kash Chemicals import of canalised items under the 1985-88 Policy was permissible. 3. Then came the case of M/s. Indo-Afghan Chambers of Commerce which was decided by the Supreme Court on the 14th May 1986, wherein it was held that the goods covered under Appendix 2 Part B of the Import Export Policy 1985-88 were restricted items which were covered under the expression "specifically banned" and hence the same were not importable. 4. Then came the case of M/s. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. which was filed in this Court and this Court in Appeal No. 565 of 1986, by placing reliance on the Raj Prakash Chemicals' case as also Indo-Afghan Chambers of Commerce's case, held that the additional licence-holders were entitled to import canali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment, on the 10th June 1987 passed the impugned order of confiscating the goods imported by the petitioners and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioners on the 21st September 1987 filed the present petition. 6. On the 8th October 1987, rule was issued and an interim order was passed directing the respondents to clear the goods on the petitioners paying all the duties and 50% of the CIF value of the goods. The petitioners on paying an amount of Rs. 98,939.50 Ps. cleared the goods. 7. Then followed yet another case of the Supreme Court being the case of B. Vijay Kumar & Co. which was decided on the 16th December 1988. In that case, a grievance was made on behalf of traders in regard to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal to the case of the two petitioners before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of B. Vijay Kumar & Co. Both the petitioners in the case of B. Vijay Kumar & Co. had opened their Letters of Credit after the 18th April 1985 and the Supreme Court held that the said two cases were bona fide importers against whom orders of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine could not be passed. Shri Shringarpure, on the other hand, placed reliance on the case of Raj Prakash Chemicals Ltd., wherein the following observations were made :- "At the same time we make it clear that diamond exporter who pursuant to the issue of additional licences under the Import Policy 1978-79 have opened and established irrevocable letters of credit on or after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the premises, the view of the Bombay High Court cannot be sustained." Shri Shringarpure finally reiterated the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of B. Vijay Kumar & Co. "We would like to emphasise that since we have decided the matter in view of the special facts and circumstances available in these cases this order will not be treated as a precedent." 9. Having considered the rival contentions, I am of the view that the facts obtaining in the present petition are identical to the facts which were before the Supreme Court in the case of B. Vijay Kumar & Co. It is true as submitted by Shri Shringarpure that the Supreme Court in this case was not concerned with the cut off date of 18th October 1985 which was cons....