TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (12) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1973 to October 4, 1973. The petitioner No. 1 imported 64 Boxes (pallets) containing synthetic resin (polyester chips) valued at Rs. 6,21,010.00 and the goods reached Bombay Port on May 31, 1974. The eight import licences were transferred to the petitioners as provided under Import Policy for the year 1973-74. The petitioners submitted the Bill of Entry and other shipping documents to the Bombay Customs on May 31, 1974 and took steps for early release of the consignments. On August 17, 1975, i.e. almost after one year and two months of the submission of the Bill of Entry, a Show Cause Notice was served on the petitioners by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The show cause notice dated August 17, 1975, inter alia, alleged that the import l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contravention of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and is liable to be confiscated. The Collector granted an option to the petitioners to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 3,10,000 only in lieu of confiscation. 4. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs but the appeal ended in dismissal by an order dated July 31,1976. The Central Board held that from the perusal of the list in Section II of the Import Policy Group of the year 1974-75, it appears that the imported items do bear a link with the product which is exported and the basic idea of replenishment would be lost if the link is broken. It was further held that Paragraph 13 of Part 'g'of Section I regarding utilisation of goods impor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rk of the restrictions/conditions as indicated in Section II of the Policy Book. It was further held that though the licences transferred in favour of the petitioners do not impose a specific condition that the imported items must be used for the manufacture of Filter and Filter elements for the purpose of export, such restriction on condition can be reasonably deduced from the relevant provisions of the I.T.C. Policy Book. The Board further held that though it is true that the import of synthetic resin in the year 1973-74 was not hampered by the restriction, the public notices dated July 20, 1974; September 18, 1974 and October 8, 1975 issued by the Government would lead to the conclusion that the import of synthetic resin under the licenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cence was granted. It was further urged that the authorities below were in error in relying upon the public notices dated July 20, 1974; September 18, 1974 and October 8, 1975 to hold that the import of synthetic resin on May 31, 1974 was invalid. The submission was that the auhorities gave retrospective effect to the public notices and that is not permissible in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd., v. The Collector of Customs, Bombay and another, reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court 704. 6. Shri Mehta further urged that the revisional authority made out a new case for the Department while holding that in accordance with the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Nirlon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reading of condition that the imported items must be used for the manufacture need not detain me as the policy for the subsequent years does provide for such condition, with the result that the issue in the petition would not affect the subsequent import. In my judgment, as the three authorities below have consistently held that it was a long standing practice of the Customs House to release similar goods against similar licences, the exercise of the powers of confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act was entirely uncalled for in the present case. The petitioners relied upon the long standing practice of the Bombay Customs House and effected the import and as the Customs House itself was in doubt 'as to whether the import was v....