KRISHANLAL BALARAM Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the above appeals are not contested on merits and are argued only in regard to the quantum of fine and the legality of the levy of penalty, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The appellants in the above cases imported Cloves from Cylon in November, 1986 and proceedings were instituted against the appellants by the Additional Collector of Customs, Madurai, on the ground that at the relevant time of import the goods in question viz. Cloves were canalised for the purpose of import and, therefore, the imports were in contravention of law. The proceedings resulted in the respective impugned orders appealed against.

(3.) SHRI Venugopalan, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants had admittedly placed orders with the suppliers in Ceylon when the goods in question were permissible for import under the relevant Import Policy of the Government of India, under OGL It is only after the appellants had entered into and concluded contracts in pursuance of which the shipments had been effected, the Import Policy of the Government of India was changed by placing the goods In question as a canalised item. It was, therefore, urged that the appellants are not guilty of any mala fide intention with the intent to evade the provisions of the Import Control Order, 1955. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that imposition of penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case is not called for. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the orders passed in similar circumstances by the Collector of Customs, Madras, in Order No. S.8/534/555/554/86 ORA dt. 19.12.1986, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, in C.3/368/1987 dated 6.5.1987, and the Bench of the Tribunal dated 30.12.1987 in Order No. 865/87, where in similar circumstances the parties had not been fastened with any penal liability in respect of import of Cloves. Regarding the quantum of fine, the learned counsel urged that since the Additional Collector under the impugned order relating to appellant Krishanlal Balaram (Customs Appeal No. 449/87) has imposed only a fine of 10% on the value of the goods imported, the same quantum may be adopted in respect of the other appeals.