1991 (1) TMI 292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the impugned order, levying a fine of Rs. 50,000 in lieu of confiscation of the goods imported, besides a penalty of Rs. 100/- under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('the Act' for short). 2. Shri Arvind Datar, Ld. Counsel submits that the Public Notice dated 29-11-1988 removing cloves from OGL and bringing it under canalised category was not published in the Gazette and made available for sale till 7-12-1988 and, therefore, the import of the cloves in the present case at Tuticorin on 6-12-1988 would not be unauthorised or in contravention of law in the factual background of the case. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the matter was adjourned on a number of occasions in the past only to enable the Ld. D.R. to produce proof about th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... containing the relevant notification and without making the same available for circulation and putting it on sale to the public will not amount to the 'notification' within the meaning of Rule 8(1) of the Rules. The intendment of the notification in the Official Gazette is that in the case of either grant or withdrawal of exemption the public must come to know of the same. 'Notify' even according to ordinary dictionary meaning would be 'to take note of, observe; to make known, publish, proclaim; to announce; to give notice to; to inform'. It would be a mockery of the rule to state that it would suffice the purpose of the notification if the notification is merely printed in the Official Gazette, without making the same available for circul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e notification dated 1st March, 1979. This went on till as late as 14th Dec. 1982. However, the petitioners cannot contend that they should be permitted to avail of the concession right till December 14, 1982, when the withdrawal of the concession was brought to their notice by a letter from the Excise department. The withdrawal notification had been published in the Gazette and the Gazette was on sale as from 8th December, 1982.' Now, on this issue whether the Withdrawal Notification would be applicable in the present case. I may cite the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Srinivasan and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, (1987) 1 SCC 658, wherein Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Bench observed :- 'There ....