TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (5) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Delhi High Court dated December 20,1984, in two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants are respectively a Company and its Managing Director. The Company was the holder of letter of authority in respect of three licences for import of coconut oil in one case and of two licences in the other and was appointed letter of authority holder in respect of the said licences. It imported two consignments of 5342.369 Mts. and 3002.557 Mts. of refined industrial coconut oil from Sri Lanka and the delivery port was Kandla. The respective ships carrying the aforesaid cargo arrived at the port of destination on 22nd September, 1982, and 10th September, 1982, and appellant No. 1 filed the Bills of Entry for release of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d fell within the ambit of Appendix 9 para 5(1) of the Import Policy of 1980-81. It was not an item under the O.G.L. of 1980-81 Policy." Respondent No. 3 further held that either [3] of the consignments was covered by the import licences produced by the appellants and was, therefore, liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act but gave an option to appellant No 1 to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 3 crores and Rs. 2 crores respectively as redemption fines. On 27-12-1982 two writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the action of the Collector. The said writ petitions were finally placed before a Bench of three Judges of the High Court; two of them being Sachar and Khanna, JJ., came to hold that the wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal authorities, it was open to the Collector functioning in lower tier to take a contrary view of the matter in exercise of quasi-judicial jurisdiction; and (4) Whether the order of the Collector was vitiated for breach of rules of natural justice, and collateral considerations in the making of the orders. It is not in dispute that the relevant import policy to be referred to is of the year 1980-81 as all the licences were issued during that period. The Collector found and the High Court has not recorded a different finding that when the licence was first revalidated on 18-1-1982, such revalidation was subject to paragraph 215 of the Import Policy of 1981-82. Again while revalidating some of the licences on 25-9-1982, it was stipulated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orts and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 provides :- "3(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Order, no person shall import in case of the descriptions specified in S.C.hedule I expect under and in accordance with the licence or a custom's clearance permitting grant by the Central Government or by any officer specified in S.C.hedule II". Para 5 of Appendix 9 ran thus :- "In the case of the various items mentioned therein, import will be made only by the State Trading Corporation of India on the basis of foreign exchange released by the Government in its favour. The items mentioned therein are :-" 5. It is thus clear that if "coconut oil" of the industrial variety was covered by paragraph 5 of Appendix 9, then it would not have been included....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rieties of it, it must follow that in 1980-81, all varieties of coconut oil were included in paragraph 5 of Appendix 9. It is, in our opinion, unnecessary to refer to authorities and precedents to support such an obvious conclusion. 8. Similarly no support is available from the communication by way of reply received by the appellants from the S.T.C. to the effect that import of edible coconut oil alone was canalised through it. When the question before us is as to what exactly was the ambit of the entry No. 1 in paragraph 5 of Appendix 9, the letter of the S.T.C. has no light to throw and the matter has to be resolved with reference to broader aspects than the letter of the Corporation. Nor can that letter or the representation contained t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial tribunals too are bound by this rule. 11. That, however, does not assist the appellants at all. It may be that the Collector of Customs should have felt bound by the decision of the Board or the Central Government but the matter has passed that stage. What we are now concerned with is not disciplining the Collector in his quasi-judicial conduct but to ascertain what the correct position in the matter is. Very appropriately, appellants' learned counsel has not found fault with the High Court for not following the quasi-judicial opinion of the Board or the Central Government nor has he pleaded for acceptance of that by us as a precedent. Once on analysis we reach the conclusion that "coconut oil" of every description was covered in parag....