The Government of India in its letter dated April 23, 1986 stated that the Chief Controller Imports exports, in companysultation with the Additional Solicitor General, has permitted the additional licence holders to import canalised items against their licences.
This appeal before us if by the Union of India through Collector Customs Calcutta against the judgment of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal directed the refund of the redemption fee to the respondent.
The Collector Customs Calcutta by his order dated, October 31, 1986, companyfiscated the goods on the ground that the import of Palm Acid Oil a canalised item was unauthorised.
Thirdly the Tribunal relied on the judgment of this Court in Vijay Kumar v. Collector of Customs, Civil Appeals Nos.
The invoice in respect of the said companytract was dated september 1, 1986 and the respondent filed the Bill of Entry on September 11, 1986.
Thirdly the Tribunal relied on the judgment of this Court in Vijay Kumar v. Collector of Customs, Civil a Appeals Nos.
From the Order dated 26.3.1990 of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control , Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
The Tribunal, therefore, found that the respondent, having acted on the representation of the Departmental authorities, was justified in importing the canalised item.
4445 4446 of 1988 decided on December 16, 1988 and granted relief to the respondent in similar terms.
The respondent entered into a companytract dated May 5, 1986 with a Singapore firm for supply of 4000 M.T. of Palm acid oil.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil appeal No.
4445 4446 of 1988 decided on December 16, 1988 and granted relief to the respondent in similar terms.
The Certificate was denied on the ground that the respondent had number diversified its exports, Against the said order the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the Bombay High Court and the respondent was held entitled to the Export House Certificate.
773/90 A. Subba Rao and P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellant.
5148 NM of 1990.
Anil B. Divan C.S. Lodha, Sumeet Kachwaha, R.P. Wadhwani and Abbas Naqvi for the Respondent.
3773/87 CA.
Order NO.
Special leave petition filed by the Union of India against the said order was heard along with a bunch of similar petitions under the title Union of India v. Rajnikant Brothers.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly with numberorder as to companyts.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. The respondent, Shashikant Company, had applied for the grant of Export House Certificate under the Import Policy 1978 79.
Pursuant to the above quoted directions of this Court the respondent was granted additional licence dated September 4, 1985 for the import of Palm acid oil which was a canalised item under the Import Policy 1985 88.
Secondly the import by the respondent was bona fide because of the following factors On April 3, 1986 in a meeting attended by Mr. Swaminathan, Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Mr R.M. Singh, Principal companylector of Customs and the representatives of the Federation of India Export Organisation, it was decided that the import of items, which were under Open General Licence during 1978 79 and were categorised as canalised under the Import Policy 1985 88, would be allowed to the additional licence holders.
The tribunal decided in favour of the respondent broadly on three grounds, It came to the companyclusion that till September 12,1986, when this Court delivered judgment in Union of India v. M s Godrej Soaps Ltd. 1986 3 SCR 771, the customs authorities were interpreting the order of this Court dated April 18, 1985 Rajnikant Case to mean that the additional licence holders were permitted to import even the canalised items.
