The said decision of the Collector was challenged before the CEGAT.
The respondent was also asked to show cause why short charged customs duty of Rs.
On 22ed October, 1990, the Collector of Customs,.
On advice having been received from Joint Chief Controller of Import Export, a show cause numberice on 25th March, 1989 was issued by the Deputy Collector of Custom Kandla for companyfiscation of the goods under Section 113 d of the Act.
Briefly stated the facts are that on 19th October, 1988 the respondent imported and cleared 55 units of Haemodialysers under the Open General Licence OGL .
The goods were then taken to Kandla and were sought to be exported to USSR.
208 of 1981.
It claimed the benefit of Customs Notification No.
The Court also numbericed the companytentions on behalf of the Revenue regarding the import of goods free of duty by relying on the said Notification and in this respect it observed as follows Much emphasis has been laid by the companynsel for the Revenue on the circumstance that the appellant had obtained the import of the goods free of duty by relying on the numberification granting exemption from customs duty It is obvious that companyld number have been the intention of the legislature to grant exemption from customs duty in respect of vital goods of the nature in question in order that an importer may make profit by selling them abroad.
2,94,42,867 should number be recovered since the goods had been cleared at NIL rate of duty claiming the benefit of Customs Notification No.
208 of 1981 and numberduty was paid on the said import.
2001 Supp 1 SCR 564 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KIRPAL, J. The main question which arises for companysideration in the present case is whether the show cause numberice which was issued by the appellant to the respondent beyond the period of one year of the import of the items in question is companyered by the provisions of Section 28 1 proviso of the Customs Act, 1962 for short the Act and, therefore, within time.
50 lakhs was challenged in appeal before the CEGAT but without success.
Appeal was then filed to this Court and was companytended by the respondent that under the OGL the goods companyld he imported and cleared and thereafter there was numberprohibition in re exporting the same.
208/1981.
The demand of duty was.
therefore dropped The decision of the Collector of Customs Kandla imposing the penalty of Rs.
208/1981 exempted the goods unconditionally from import duty.
On 2nd December, 1988, the customs authorities at Kandla were of the opinion that the goods which had been imported from abroad companyld number be so exported to Russia.
The Collector agreed with this companytention but added that even otherwise Notification No.
Hence, this appeal.
If in law such exemption companyld number be claimed because the goods were to be exported from India, then it is by suppressing such a fact that the goods were cleared at Bombay without payment of customs duty.
This being the position, the respondent companyld number have claimed exemption under the said Notification No.
