VYSYA BANK LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) bearing No.595/88-BOM dated 28/1/88 upholding the order of the Dy. Collector of Customs confiscating the goods and allowing the appellants, the Vysya Bank Ltd. to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of each Bill of Entry.

(2.) The brief facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of the appeal can be stated as below:

(3.) SHRI Mondal, on behalf of the department, however, contended that the appellants, M/s. Vysya Bank Ltd. came into the picture only on 1-7-85, when they wanted to get clearance of the goods because they had financed the opening of letter of credit. As per the provisions of the Import Policy, they were given the benefit of clearance; otherwise the goods would have been confiscated absolutely or allowed on a heavier fine. In this case the fact that the licences are conditional, is not disputed. The condition is that the goods should be used by the manufacturer importer in the production and that condition could not apparently be complied with because the material imported does not find usage in leather tanning industry but only finds use in manufacture of detergent industry. Only on this basis endorsements on the licences also have been cancelled because they were obtained by mis-representation, and even this cancelled order was brought to the notice of the concerned parties and thereafter only adjudication order was passed after taking into account their submission. Hence, there is no illegality in this approach, as alleged by the appellants. He also contended that in this case, no penalty had been imposed on the bankers. Since the goods have been imported contrary to the condition of the licences, order of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine, are inescapable. He also contended that this is not a case where demmurage charges can be waived. The delay is not on account of the department but on account of the illegal import committed by the letter of authority holders and the licensee. He, therefore, contended that this is not a case where the department can recommend waiver of demmurage charges.