TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (1) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Circuit Board after making necessary application to the DGTD, New Delhi, for endorsement in terms of paragraph 51(iii) of the Import and Export Policy, 1985-88. The said licences being transferable, the petitioner got the above REP licences transferred in its favour by NK Yahya Gani and Co. Since one of the items endorsed and permitted for import under the said REP licence is populated printed circuit board and since the petitioner was in need of the said material as accessories required by it for the manufacture of VCR manufactured-by it under the brand name 'CONTACT', it got the REP licences transferred particularly in the light of the public notice dated 7-9-1988 which made REP licences endorsed for import of non-OGL capital goods as fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods under importation are interconnected sub-assemblies and these are not covered by the import licence produced. Ultimately, he passed an order directing confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 1,96,920 CIF under Sec. 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sec. 111(m) of the Customs Act. However, an option was given to the importers to redeem the same for home consumption on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000 and also on payment of duty at the appropriate rate. A penalty of Rs. 20,000 was also imposed under Section 112 of the Act. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Shri R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the licences pursuant to which import ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so-called sub-assembly is part of PPCB and that though all the circuits found in the PPCB together form the circuit board, there is nothing to indicate that any new material has been introduced in the board, import of which is not permissible. On the question of alternative remedy, the appeal to the Special Bench of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal is not an effective one, since it is not competent to interpret the classification of goods and that the petitioner will not be able to get any interim order for the release of goods. 5. Sri P. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that it is not maintainable without exhausting the alternative remedy available under law.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs like records maintained by the Department showing the contents of PPCB, the literature published by the manufacturers in this regard, the earlier imports of similar materials, technical opinion on this aspect, etc. All these things are nothing but factual aspects. Therefore, I do not find any difficulty for the petitioner approaching the Appellate Tribunal for appropriate remedy. This Court is not expected to enter into factual investigation in a writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. I find that there is a tendency in recent times for people to by-pass such special Tribunals for reasons best known to them. If in every case of disputed assessment, petitions are entertained by this court, it would lead to a situa....