2020 (6) TMI 126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tted through Kochi Port. Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Writ Petition No. 32705/2007 stayed the operation of the said Notification vide Order dated 05.11.2007. The Hon'ble High Court, however, vide Judgment dated 15.02.2008 dismissed the Writ Petition. During the interregnum, Bills of Entry were provisionally assessed and the imported Palm oil was cleared for home consumption. A SCN was issued to M/s Liberty Oils Ltd. seeking to confiscate 1999.695 MTs of RBD Palmolein and to impose penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1952. The SCN was adjudicated wherein, vide Order dated 12.02.2009, Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 80 Lakhs and however, refrained from imposing redemption fine as the goods were already released. M/s Liberty Oil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. 14. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 15. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: 3.1. He submits that in the case of Viraz Impex, the contract was entered on 26.11.1998 and the restriction Notification No. 34 was issued on 10.12.1998 regarding the floor price of defective/secondary HR coils; the importer has requested the supplier on 15.12.1998 to cance....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed non est. Moreover, Hon'ble High Court did not quash the Notification. Relying on the Apex Court decision in the case of Shri Chamundi Moped Ltd. Vs Church of South India Trust Association, Madras, 1992 (3) SCC 1, he submits that a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in restoration of the position as its stood on the date of passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. Learned Commissioner has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....la has restored the position existing as on the date of import by quashing the Writ Petition. Therefore, we find that the importer was required to comply with the Notification dated 16.10.2007, inasmuch as they could not produce an irrevocable commercial letter of credit as required by the Notification. Therefore, we find that the impugned goods are liable for confiscation in terms of Section 111 (d) of Customs Act, 1962. However, looking into the long legal process undergone by the appellants and looking into the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to reduce the penalty to Rs. 38 Lakhs from Rs. 80 Lakhs. Appeal No. C/362/2009 is disposed of accordingly. In respect of Departmental Appeal No. C/392/2009, we find that there is force in....