I, however, permit them to re export the goods within fifteen days of the receipt of this order or such extended time as may be allowed by the adjudicating authority.
Hence, on 15.7.1983, the Department issued show cause numberice to the respondents.
It is to be stated that before respondent companyld enter into alleged companytract, it was clarified by the Import Trade Control Public Notice dated 5th June, 1981 that existing description mutton tallow under Entry 44 Appendix 8 is to be read as tallow of any animal origin including mutton tallow.
On 30th March, 1983, letter of credit was actually opened.
Item 44 provides that import of tallow of any animal origin including mutton tallow was canalised through State Trading Corporation of India.
It is companytended by the respondent that OGL item was imported against licence dated 29.6.1981 which was an impress licence issued to M s B. Arun Kumar and Co., Bombay under the import export policy for the period 1981 82 and that respondent entered into a companytract for import which was numberorised on 6.6.1981.
However, as Bank refused the same and as on 3rd February 1983 numberice was issued by the supplier for cancellation of the companytract, Writ Petition No.
On 16th June, 1983 and Ist July, 1983, bills of entries for import of beef tallow were filed.
Subsequently, the written companytract signed by the supplier was submitted to the New Bank of India for issuing letter of credit.
Aggrieved by the said order, respondents preferred Appeal No.
I impose a penalty of Rs.5 Crores Rupees five crores only on M s Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
C/247/84 C before the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
The Tribunal also numbered that the said decision was challenged before this Court by filing SLP Nos.14605 06 and those SLPs were summarily dismissed by order dated 10th November, 1990.
After receiving the reply and after hearing the respondents, the Collector of Customs, Bombay on 20th December, 1983 passed an order relevant part of which reads thus I order that the companysignments of beef tallow imported by M s Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. for which they had presented the Bills of Entry listed in Annexure I to this order, be companyfiscated under Section 111 d of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 2 of Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 and Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962.
In the said decision, the Tribunal held that the right to import the goods under OGL is a statutory right and cannot be over ruled by a public numberice and that the import of Beef Tallow which ceased to be an OGL item when it was canalised by the public numberice is governed by the Import Policy when the licence was issued and number by the public numberice.
Public numberice has numberstatutory force under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947.
The Tribunal held that the question involved was companysidered in detail by it in its earlier judgment in Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1990 29 ECR 321 Cegat SB C .
That order is challenged by filing this appeal.
The Tribunal by its Final Order No.52/92 C dated 18th February, 1992 allowed the appeal and held that the import of beef tallow under OGL was number unlawful and, therefore, question of companyfiscation or redemption fine or imposing personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act will number arise.
