TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (9) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred the same in favour of Sneh Sales Corporation, respondent No. 1 herein. On the basis of the said licences respondent No. 1 imported two consignments of Polyester filament yarn from Japan. One consignment consisting of 509 cartons was cleared through the Inland Container Deport (ICD), New Delhi against Bill of Entry No. 1974 dated October 31, 1986 and the second consignment consisting of 132 cartons was cleared through ICD, New Delhi against Bill of Entry No. 1906 dated October 23, 1986. The goods were assessed under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] and were allowed clearance for home consumption under Section 47 of the Act. After clearance the goods were despatched to Bombay and were stored ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated December 18, 1986 passed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports under clause 9 of the Import and Export (Control) Order, 1955 the four import licences on the basis of which goods were imported by respondent No. 1 had been cancelled ab initio on the ground that the party had obtained the said licences by fraud and misrepresentation. The Collector held that since the licences had been cancelled ab initio by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports there was no licence in existence at the time of import and the goods had been imported in contravention of the provisions of Import and Export (Control) Act and the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act. The Collector further found ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt the plea of respondent No. 1 that they were bona fide purchaser of the licences. In view of the fact that Nitin Shah knew that the licences were fraudulently obtained and also keeping in view the fact that respondent No. 1 are only traders in the goods the Collector did not give the importers an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation and he held that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act and imposed the penality of Rs. 5,00,000/- on respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,50,000/- on respondent No. 2. 3.The respondents filed an appeal against the said order passed by the Collector which has been disposed of by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as 'the Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cancellation of the licences took place on the date of confiscation and not with retrospective effect. The Technical Member agreed with the finding recorded by the Judicial Member on the question of valuation. 4.Shri Anoop Choudhary, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in support of the appeal, has urged that the Tribunal was in error in interfering with the order passed by the Collector regarding confiscation of the goods as well as the imposition of penalty. As regards confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act the submission of the learned counsel is that since the licences have been cancelled by Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports ab initio the Collector was right in holding that there was no valid autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case the licences were cancelled by order dated December 18, 1986 after the goods had been imported and cleared. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the import of the goods was not in contravention of the provisions of Import and Export Order, 1955 and Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 and the goods were not liable to be confiscated on that basis under Section 111(d) of the Act. 6.As regards confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) Shri Choudhary has invited our attention to para 22 of the order passed by the Collector wherein it is said:- "The value of these 6,367 bobbins therefore was appraised locally. It was noticed that similar bobbins had been imported at Bombay at the price of Japanese Yen 350 per piece CIF Bo....