TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (11) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thereto. The total C.I.F. value of the licence was Rs. 40,00,000. The second licence was for "Steel Drum for Lubricating Oil Packing" of the total C.I.F. value of Rs. 50,30,000/-. The petitioners placed orders for import of steel with a firm of manufacturers in the United States of America, and the goods under the two licences reached the Bombay Port in 12 separate consignments. On arrival of the consignments, the petitioners filed Bills of Entry for consumption of the goods but the Chief Customs Appraiser at Bombay did not allow clearance of the goods on the following grounds : (a) That under the Import Licence the appellants were entitled to import only price quality sheets and no other sheets; (b) that the quality of the sheets import....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held that the sheets imported were not of "prime quality" but they were also unsuitable for the manufacture of drums, specially those which were of 11, 12 and 13 gauges. The petitioners preferred revision applications before the Government of India to challenge the correctness of the order passed by the Central Board and the Government came to the conclusion by its order dated June 13, 1966 that the condition of 'prime quality' could not be applied to the sheets imported under the licence as the said condition was imposed only on December 6, 1962 by the public notice issued by Iron and Steel Controller and the public notice has no retrospective operation. The Government further observed that one of the two licences, i.e. licence dated June ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reconsider the revision application on merits. The Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioners to lead additional evidence to prove that the goods or substantial part of the goods imported under various consignments were subject to "permissible tolerance" according to the terms of the licence or for any other reason. The Supreme Court made it clear that the enquiry would be restricted to the question whether the consignments in respect of which fine has been imposed did or did not comply with the condition in the licence of the specification "subject to the permissible tolerance" relating to 18 gauge. 5. In accordance with the order passed by the Supreme Court, the Government took up for consideration the six revision applications an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne Banwarilal Saraf appeared on behalf of the petitioners at the hearing. The Collector by the impugned order dated April 30, 1979, imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1,16,000 in respect of six consignments on the petitioners. The Collector came to the conclusion that all the consignments involved in the proceedings could not have satisfied the description of 18 gauges as specified in the import licence, and however, in the absence of complete examination, it is also doubtful whether the entire consignment would have fallen short of this requirement. The Collector felt that if part of the consignment has been rendered liable to confiscation, the petitioners would be liable to penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The Collector too....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the record of examination that the examining officers had not found that the entire consignment was of 18 gauges, though the record suggests that some were in fact of 18 gauges. The Collector felt that in this state of affairs, it would be better to take a lenient view of the matter and imposed personal penalty. In my judgment, the order of the Collector cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court while remanding the matter had given specific direction that the authority should ascertain whether the goods in respect of each of the consignments did or did not comply with the conditions in the licence of the specification "subject to permissible tolerance" relating to 18 gauge. The Collector undoubtedly found difficulty in recording conclusio....