1988 (12) TMI 336

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the goods imported by them and imposing redemption fine in liew of confiscation and imposing penalty against them. 3. The appellants imported canalised items under additional import licence granted to them in pursuant to this Court's order dated 18.4.1985 in Civil Appeal No. 1423/84, Union of India v. Rajni Kant Brothers. By that order this Court directed the Union of India to issue additional licences for the import of items placed under OGL during the policy period 1978-79, with direction that "save and except the items which are specifically banned under the relevant import policy at the time of import, such licence holders would be entitled to import all other items either canalised or otherwise in accordance with the relevant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies, they had not committed breach of any law and they were not liable to pay any penalty or fine and the goods so imported were not liable to be confiscated. The Tribunal allowed the appeals partly, it held that the disputed imports had not been made in defiance of the Import Policy or the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it observed "at best there was a wrong understanding of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. This wrong understanding was not only on the part of the importers but was also on the part of the licencing authority and even the Union Government and the importers were also entitled to seek sustenance from the judgment of the Bombay High Court." On these findings the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on ....