ORDER
K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India against the order No. 633 of 1981 dated 11-12- 1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.
2. The appellants imported amoxycillin trihydrate, a drug. It was in the Open General Licence during 1978-79 Policy period. However, the appellants’ consignment arrived in India in June, 1979 by which time amoxycillin trihydrate stood canalised as per Appendix 9 of the Import Policy of 1979-80 and hence no longer in the OGL. The Collector ordered confiscation of the goods and had adjudged redemption fine of Rs. 5.24 lakhs. In appeal before the Central Board of Excise & Customs, the appellants relied on an earlier order in appeal of the Board (No. 980/1980 dated 29-11- 1980) which, the appellants say also related to late shipment. Following the ratio of this earlier order, the Board reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thereupon, the appellants filed a revision application before the Central Government which, on transfer of the proceedings to this Tribunal is now the present appeal before us.
3. During the hearing before us, the appellants repeated the plea taken before the lower authorities that they had handed over the consignment to Aeroflot for air-booking on 29-4- 1979 and that the delay in arrival of the goods in India via Moscow was entirely due to the Airlines. However, they did not really press for this plea except stating that since the Board had followed the ratio of the earlier order dated 29-11- 1980, the Board should have remitted the redemption fine in full. Since the copy of the Board’s earlier order No. 980/1980 dated 29-11-80 was not on record we asked the appellants to file a copy of it within two day’s time. They stated in the Court that they were unable to get a copy of this order. In the absence of the order we do not know what the facts in that case were and whether the remission of fine granted in that case was full or partial.
4. The plea which the appellants really pressed for before us was that even in June, 1979, amoxycillin trihydrate was in the OGL and what was canalised in Appendix 9 was only amoxycillin, the base. What they had imported was not the base but its salt. The learned departmental representative invited our attention to para 195 (iv) of the AM- 1979-80 Policy, which stated, inter alia, that any item of drug appearing in Appendices 3, 5 & 9 would include its salt, ester and derivative also. The learned departmental representative submitted that the entry “amoxycillin” in Appendix 9 of the Policy had to be read along with paragraph 195 (iv) of the Policy. The appellants pleaded, on the contrary, that since OGL was a statutory order issued under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act and the condition of the statutory order incorporated only the Appendix 9, and not para 195 (iv) of the Policy, the entry as it appeared in Appendix 9 alone was to be taken as outside the scope of the statutory order (OGL).
5. We have given the matter in our earnest consideration. No doubt, condition No. (1) of the statutory order (OGL) stated that the items to be imported should not be covered by Appendices 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the Import Policy, 1979-80. Amoxycillin appeared in Appendix 9 and was thus outside the scope of the OGL. Paragraph 195 (iv) of the Policy was in the nature of a definition clause common to three Appendices – 3, 5 & 9 all of which were outside the scope of the OGL. The definition clause stated that any drug item appearing in Appendices 3, 5 & 9 was to be taken to include salt, ester and derivative of that drug. The meaning and scope of any drug items in Appendices 3, 5 & 9 had, therefore, to be determined in accordance with the definition clause which governed the scope of the drug entries in these appendices. The appellants seem to insist that paragraph 195 (iv) would have been applicable to them only if it had been repeated in each of the relevant Appendices themselves. We do not agree, the very purpose of a definition clause is to avoid repetition of the meaning and scope elsewhere in the text. Once paragraph 195 (iv) defined the scope of the drug entries in the Appendices, and this paragraph occurs at the beginning of the appendices, there was no need at all to repeat the contents of the paragraph in each of the Appendices again. We hold, therefore that when condition No. (1) of the statutory order (OGL) referred to Appendix 9, it meant the entries of the Appendix 9 as defined in paragraph 195 (iv). To take any contrary view would amount to saying that the definition clause had no meaning, which is not an acceptable proposition.
6. The appellants invited our attention to order No. 536/Cal/86/7162, dated 26-11-86 passed by the East Regional Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Man-singka Brothers & other. We find, however, that the Calcutta Bench’s order dealt with questici of amendments to the Policy made after the date of issue of the statutory order. No such question arises in the case before us, since, we are concerned with meaning and scope of Appendix 9 of the Policy as it stood on the date of issue of the statutory order, the Calcutta Bench’s or is therefore, not relevant for the discussion before us.
7. Accordingly, we hold that the import of amoxycillin trihydrate being canalised by Appendix 9 of AM-80 Policy, the appellants were not entitled to import it in June, 1979. The Board had already granted very substantial relief by reducing the amount of redemption fine to just about 10% of the value of the goods. We do not think any further relief is merited.
8. In the result, we dismiss this appeal.