2000 (3) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, in his Order No. 209/96-WRB, dated 29-1-1996. If the licence is held to be not valid to cover the import, whether fine and penalty needs to be modified ? 2.The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein imported a consignment of Sodium Saccharine for which they filed a bill of entry in February, 1996 claiming clearance in terms of REP licence against the description of the goods 'Electroplating Salts and Brightener'. The Customs authorities took the view that Sodium Saccharine is mentioned at Sl. No. 83 Appx. 2 Part B of the Import Policy 1985-88 under the list of restricted items, and that Paragraph 5 of Appx. 17 of the Policy lays down that import of items appearing in Appx. 2 Part B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ium Saccharine has not been specifically mentioned in either Col. 4 or 5 of Appx. 17. Hence the contention that the item can be imported under REP licence as it is covered by generic description 'Electroplating Salts and Brightener' is not tenable. Although Sodium Saccharine is a Electroplating Salt, since it has not been mentioned specifically by name in Col. 4 or 5 of Appx. 17 of the Policy, import of this item under REP licence is not valid. 6.We note that in the decision of Ashish & Co. cited supra, the issue related to import of Sodium Saccharine against REP licence for the same policy period and the Tribunal held that the import was valid, following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Harish Kumar & Co. v. Assistant ....