1990 (3) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Section lll(d) of the Customs Act and granted redemption of the same on payment of fine for Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The appellants had filed Bill of Entry No. 41152, dated 28-7-1985 for clearance of goods described as "photographic lenses" valued at Rs. 1,94,865/- against licence No. P/W/0421338, dated 31-12-1985. The department on scrutiny found that the imported items fall under Sl. No. 471((3) of Appx. 3A of Import Policy 85-88 requiring specific licence for clearing the imported goods. 3. A Show Cause Notice dated 2-9-1987 was issued for confiscation under Sec. lll(d) and Sec. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The appellants had contended before the lower authoritiesthat they had purchased the goods on high seas. The licence produced ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llants in reply to Show Cause Notice that the imported goods are used by professional cameramen and also used for enlargement purposes. Therefore, the Additional Collector came to the conclusion that the imported goods fall under Sl. No. 471 (iii) of Appendix 3A and hence the additional licence produced by the appellants was not valid one and that the importation is unauthorised one. The Additional Collector, however, did not take alenient view on account of past practice of clearance of similar goods by accepting addl. licence and on this ground he did not impose personal penalty under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act. 5. Sri Naveen Mullick, Advocate submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and that the Additional Collector ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation for change in the established practice and confiscating the goods. In this connection, he relied upon the following rulings :- (i) Decor India and Others v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, as reported in 1987(31) E.L.T. 400T. (ii) Gujarat State Export Corporation v. Union of India, as reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 50. (iii) Shama Engine Valves Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay as reported in 1985(5) ETR 128 = 1984 (18) E.L.T. 533 (Tri). 7. Smt. Dolly Saxena, SDR supported the reasoning given by the Additional Collector in the impugned order. She submitted that the D.G.T.D.'s clarifications had been obtained and only thereafter the Additional Collector had adjudicated the matter. She further contended that the appellants cannot ....