TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (8) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s pleaded that the appellants have imported GP sheets which were defective against REP licence. The learned adjudicating authority held that the licence did not cover the goods. The learned Counsel pleaded that while he is not contesting the appeal on merits he is confining his plea in regard to the quantum of redemption fine fixed. He mentioned certain facts for proper appreciation of appellants' plea. He pleaded that the goods imported were against REP licence of the product group G 22.1 AM 80-81 Policy. He pleaded that similar goods had been imported at other ports and taking into consideration the confusion regarding items covered by the licence produced a lenient view was taken in respect of the consignments imported at Calcutta. He fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the present case should be proportionately reduced. 3. The learned D.R. reiterated the reasoning of the Collector's order. 4. We observe that the appellants before the adjudicating authority sought clearance of the GP sheets imported against the following 3 REP licences : (1) P/K/0381582/C/XX/77/8/80 NQQ/11-12-1980 (2) P/L/0381291/C/XX/77/8/80 NQQ/03-12-1980 (3) P/L/2870560/C/XX/78/8/80 NQQ/10-02-1981. Against these three licences the following was the view taken by the authorities below : "The Licence bearing Nos. P/K/0381582/11-12-1980and P/K/0381291/03-12-1980 issued for the policy period 1980-81 relating to export product No. G 22(1) carried the general description, "Packing material", while the third import lic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot valid and the importation of 80 coils of GP sheets (Defective) valued Rs. 3,43,800/- was unauthorised" The learned Counsel for the appellants in view of the view taken by the authorities pleaded as under : "It was pleaded that the original licence against which letters of credit were opened were not available with them because they had got into difficulty on account of raids and produced whatever licences were available with them for clearance of the subject goods. It was conceded that the licence produced under F 13 and G 22(1) did not cover the goods under import as per the ITC policy in force during the relevant period. There was no dispute with regard to the liability of the goods for confiscation inasmuch as the licences produ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent case are distinguishable. As held in the order of the lower authority, the appellants could have imported goods in the nature of packing materials which were required for the export items listed in F.13 and G. 22(1) in the relevant import policy. The appellants have admitted before the lower authority that the licences produced were not valid for the importation of the goods. They have not taken any plea that they were guided by any previous practice etc. while effecting importation. It is significant to note in the present case that the LC was opened against the licences different from the ones which were produced for clearance of the consignment. These licences were not produced before the authorities and the reasons for the same we....