TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (5) TMI 427
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-88. Serial No. (IX) of product group 'O' of Appendix 17 reads as under - "(IX). Pearl/headed pins/stapling pings and Industrial Sapling Machines." The clearance was not allowed on REP licence as the Custom House Bombay had a clarification dated 11-3-1987 from Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The letter read as follows : "Please refer to your letter No. 7111/G(h)56/80-Appg/144, dated 4-1-1987, on the subject mentioned above. 2. In this connection, it is clarified that against REP licences issued for export product Group 'O' of App. 17 of the Import & Export Policy, 1985-88 (Vol. 1), only those staple pins are allowed import which are used as an item of embellishment & trimmings in the manufacture of the export produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the ground that the same are used in the garment industry. However, in this context the clarification given by the D.G.F.T vide letter dated 11-3-1987 is very unambiguous. It reads as under : "only those stapling pins are allowed import which are used as an item of Trimming and Embellishments in the manufacture of export product. The Stapling Pins, which are used as stationery items are not permitted for import against the export product under Group 'O'." It is not the case of the appellants that they are using the impugned staple pins as items of embellishment. Obviously, the same are being used only as a stationery item and this certainly does not bring them within the scope of the above concession. In my opinion, if the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and a practice being prevalent in the Department is to be upheld. The Tribunal in the case of Somjit Enterprise v. CC, 1993 (63) E.L.T. 119 (Tri) (Paras 5 to 7) has held "5. The learned Consultant, Shri B.B. Chakraborty appearing for the appellants contended that it is now an admitted case that the Customs Authority had allowed import of such staple pins during the previous years and it is an established past practice of the Custom House to allow such imports. In that view of the matter, the appellants acted bona fide and the fact that C.C.I. & E. has given a clarification at a later date, is not sufficient to hold that the imports of such goods are unauthorised. In this connection, he placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te clear that what types of goods would not be allowed. Even if there is a dispute as to the interpretation of the Policy and the licence, the dispute should be resolved in favour of the subject..............." It is, thus, clear that when C.C.I. & E. has given a clarification the same should have been informed to the general public who are importing the goods in question and they should have made clear as to what types of goods could not be allowed. It is, further, seen that even the Customs Department was doubtful about the interpretation of the Policy and it cannot be said that there were wants of bona fides on the part of the appellants. When there is such a confusion the benefit s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taple pins in closing the polythene packing of export product would also be covered by the said expression.' The point, under the circumstances, having already stood decided and there being on distinguishing features, the objection raised and findings given by the authorities below, cannot be sustained." Since in the case of Somjit Enterprise, the Bench of this Tribunal for import of same impugned item viz. stationery staple pins under same EXIM Policy concluded the want of bona fides and bound the Custom to their past practice and allowed the appeal after setting aside the confiscation and penalty. We find no reason to come to a different view in the present import. (b) &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by a Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and not Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. It was only the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports who was only competent to issue clarification on Policy. This letter dated 11-3-1987 does not even refer to it being issued with the approval of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. That a reference for clarification was called for by the Custom House Bombay would go to indicate that Customs Department also had a doubt practice. No Public Notice of change in practice has been issued. It is found that Custom Appraising Manual Vol. II Chapter 5 Para 114(i) provides - "(i) Import of goods on basis of previous clearance, where identical consignments have been cleared previousl....