JUDGMENT
J.H. Joglekar, Member (Technical)
1. The appellant claimed clearance of the secondary defective CRGO electrical steel sheets under the strength of two REP licences dated 28/07/1990 and 16/09/1991 respectively. The Commissioner of Customs held that the licences were not sufficient to cover the goods on the following logic.
“8. The items covered under the Bills of Entry filed by the clearing Agents for the imports by M/s. Tristar Manufacturing Co. are secondary defective CRGO Electrical Steel sheets. These items are covered under para 170 in the Appendix-2 B of AM 1990-93 Import Policy. Thus these imports are to covered by the REP licences produced by the importer as these imports have taken place when the 1990-93 Policy had come into existence and operation. Anything which is inconsistent with the 1990-93 Policy and imported when the said Policy is in operation will not be valid for import.”
2. In this belief he ordered confiscation of the goods but permitted redemption on payment of fine and also imposed penalty on the importers. Hence this appeal.
3. Shri R.K. Thawani relies upon the Tribunal’s order in the case of Sputnik Stamping v. CC 2000 (118) ELT 625 in which identical situation was covered. In that case the licences were issued during the currency of the Policy 1992-93 but were subject to the conditions as applicable under 1989-90 Policy. The Tribunal in paragraph 4 and 8 of the order held as under:
“4. These licences contained a condition on the reverse that they are is subject to the import policy in force relating to the goods as described in the policy, or any amendment made, up to the date of issue of licence unless otherwise specified. In the absence of any such specification, it is the policy in force of 1990-93 amended up to the date of issue of licence that would apply. The specific provision in the licence making applicable in the 1989-90 policy is a specification otherwise provided for in the condition that we have referred. It is therefore that policy that must apply, along with the restrictions and conditions therein.”
“8. From our discussions it must be concluded that it is the 1989-90 policy that would be for import for the licence in question subject to the face value restrictions contained in appendix 7 of paragraph 177 of the policy. We are told by the advocate for the appellants that import of these goods are within the limit. Subject to this condition, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.”
4. The facts being identical in the present case the ratio of the judgment would apply. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The clearance of the goods under the Policy is permitted. In doing so the Revenue Officers would ensure that the imports are within the limits as observed by the Tribunal as above.