ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. M/s. Coronation Spinning Mills have filed this appeal along with Misc. application. In the Misc. application, there is a request for deciding the matter in accordance with the judgment dt. 12-8-99 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that this Tribunal by its Order No. A/273/91/NRB, dt. 10-6-91 had held
“In the view we have taken this condonation application is rejected and as a consequence, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred”.
Against this order, the applicant went up to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court in its order dt. 12-8-99 [1999 (113) EX.T. 376 (S.C.)] ruled
“Having heard ld. Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the Tribunal ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Tribunal shall hear and dispose of the appeal on merits”.
3. Pursuant to this direction of the Apex Court, the appeal is taken up for consideration on merits.
4. The facts of the case briefly stated are that M/s. Coronation Spinning India the appellant in this case claimed clearance of goods. On scrutiny of the documents, it was observed that the consignment has been shipped to Calcutta Port on 23-10-89. Under the provision of the Public Notice 122-ITC (PN) -88-91, dt. 28-4-1989 Synthetic Rags under OGL were allowed to be imported at two ports only viz. Bombay and Delhi TCD, The same provisions were also incorporated in OGL 1/88, dt. 30-3-1988. Since there was restriction of import of goods at Calcutta Port, the goods declared as Synthetic Rags were confiscated by the authorities below.
5. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri N. Singh, ld. Consultant submits that the issue is covered by a decision of this Tribunal in their own case which followed the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kalindi Woollen Mills (P) Ltd. v. U.O.I reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 827. Ld. Consultant, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed.
6. Shri Mewa Singh, ld. DR reiterates the findings of the authorities below.
7. We have heard both the sides. We have also perused the case law cited by the Consultant for the appellants. We note that this Tribunal in their own case in Final Order No. A/1196-1198/96-NB, dt. 18-4-96 in para 3 observed:
“We have considered the submissions. We agree that the matter is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court which has been followed in number of appeals by this Bench. Respectfully following the same, we allow the present batch of three appeals with consequential relief to the appellants”.
8. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kalindi Woollen Mills (P) Ltd., (supra) has observed that condition that woollen rags could be imported only through the ports of Bombay and Delhi resulting in favouritism to mills in Western and North Western regions by making imports of said raw-material to mills in other regions costlier and the plea of lack of administrative machinery to supervise mutilation of woollen rags at other ports, no ground to justify the condition as it is not beyond the resources of Customs Department to equip other ports suitably. Therefore, the condition is arbitrary discriminatory and without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of Constitution of India and ultra vires of Section 3 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and Public Notice No. 122-ITC(PN)/88-91, dt. 26-4-89.
9. Following the ratio of the above decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court followed by the Tribunal in the case of the appellants themselves, we allow the appeal Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.