ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to the benefit of exemption contained in notification 120/78 of goods that the appellant imported. The exemption was sought to be denied by the department on the ground that the condition contained in the first proviso to the notification had not been complied with. This proviso reads thus: “Provided that the importer produces a certificate from the authority issuing the import replenishment licence or an endorsement by the said authority on the said licence specifying the quantity and value of nylon filament yarn or polyester filament yarn or both, as the case may be, allowed to be imported under the said licence against exports of the aforesaid products.” The department’s objection was based on the fact that of the six import licences that were produced by the importer on clearance of the goods, four did not even specify the item-nylon filament yarn or polyester filament yarn, which could be imported. The licences permitted import of “raw material components, consumable stores and packing materials” in accordance with the provisions made in the relevant policy of 1997-98. After the round of litigation, the matter finally reached the Tribunal which, by order passed on 27.5.1987, found that various submissions that had been made had not been considered by the Assistant Collector or Collector (Appeals). We therefore remanded the matter for his consideration of these submissions as also of the applicability of the ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Stretch Fibres (India) Ltd. and Ors. v. UOI .
2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.
3. The reason that the Collector (Appeals) advances for denial of the benefit of the notification is failure to comply with the contents of the first proviso to the notification. The question before the Bombay High Court in Stretch Fibres (India) Ltd. and Ors. v. UOI was whether, in the absence of a specific endorsement in the licences of the quantity, the goods imported under them would be entitled to the exemption. The court, after considering the relevant provisions of the policy, concluded that “the absence of the endorsement in respect of the quantity cannot be a ground for refusing the petitioner’s claim for exemption from the payment of duty in respect of the import of goods in question.” We have noted that the only deficiency found in two import licences was for the failure to mention the quantity. Insofar as that licences are concerned, the judgment of the High Court will apply. The Collector’s view that he does not feel himself bound by the ratio of the judgment is not acceptable. His reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Miles India Ltd. v. UOI 1985 ECR 289, which provides that authorities under the statute are governed in their decision by the terms of the statutes does not afford him scope to refuse to follow the judgment of the High Court on the specific issue. As far as the other licences are concerned, we do not see how the ratio of the judgment applies. In a case where even the nature of the goods imported has not been mentioned, it will clearly not apply. In the case of the fifth licence, neither having regard to the reasoning of the High Court, we do not think that it cannot be justifiable in holding that in applying the ratio in a situation that neither the value nor the quantity of the goods mentioned.
4. The contention in the appeal that there has been specific endorsement in the licences incorporating quantity and value is not supported by any other documents. Only one copy of the licence has been enclosed to the appeal and we are not able to find on it such endorsement.
5. In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed with respect to the goods covered by licence No. 2835244 dated 6.10.1978 and dismissed with respect to the other licences. The order of the Collector (Appeals) is otherwise confirmed. Consequential relief in accordance with law.