Per Shri T.P. Nambiar :

These appeals are filed against the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs in order No. S30/14/93 dated 23.4.1993. In terms of that order, the adjudicating authority held that the present imports are not in consonance with the policy of 1992-97 and he confiscated the goods in question and allowed the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 30,00,000/-. This case pertains to the import of 6027.86 Kgs of Chinese origin Mulberry Raw Silk valuing Rs. 39,94,097/-. The appellants claimed the clearance of the above such goods. The case of the appellant was that all the said Exim Scrips were issued under the Import & Export Policy 1990-93. They also pointed out that the items covered under appendix 3 & 5 Para-A of the said policy could be imported against them. It was also contended that Raw Silk was covered under appendix-5 Para-A of the previous policy and therefore it was claimed by the appellants that the said import is covered by the Exim Scrips imported by them.

2. The department was of the opinion that the same cannot be imported. In this connection, para-4 of 1992-97 policy was interpreted in the light of the clarification issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade in circular no. 19/92 dt. 17.12.1992. In terms of that circular, it was mentioned that the import in such cases can be allowed only if the items are specifically mentioned therein.

3. The learned advocate Shri Vikram S. Nankani appearing for the appellants contended before us that this circular bearing No. 19/92-97 dated 17.12.92 is no longer good in view of the fact that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had quashed the same. In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 1994 (69) ELT 453 in the case of Enterprise International Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs.

4. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 1995 (78) ELT 12 in the case of Collector of Customs Vs. Prashant Glass Works. He pointed out that this division bench judgement has affirmed the decision of the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court reported in 1995 (77) ELT 844. It was also pointed out that the above cited Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court was relied upon by the Tribunal of the West Regional Bench in order No. 1180-1193/94 dt. 14.7.1994. He had produced a xerox copy of the above order of the tribunal wherein the tribunal relying on the above decision of the Calcutta High Court held that the circular cannot take away of the vested right of the importer which is conferred by the Import Policy.

5. The learned SDR for the department Shri Victor Thyagaraj on the other hand pointed out that in the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court there was a contract entered into earlier to the issue of the IPC circular. He, therefore, pointed out that the above said decision of the Calcutta High Court is not applicable to the facts of this case. He also pointed out that similar was the position in the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. As far as the decision of the tribunal is concerned, he stated that the full facts are not clear in the above said order. He, further, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. and Another reported in 1986 (26) ELT 465. Relying on the above said decision of the Supreme Court, he pointed out that the provisions applicable are the provisions of the new import policy at the time of import of the goods. He also stated that by reason of the issue of the circular, the policy is clarified because it was issued in terms of section 5 of the Foreign Trade Development & Regulations Act, 1992.

6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. In order to appreciate the arguments of both the sides, we here below the para 4 of the policy 1992-97 which reads as follows:-

"Any Notification made or Public Notice issued or anything done under the previo