CIRDHARILAL BANSIDHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are no merits in this appeal by special leave and it deserves to be dismissed.

(2.) The appellant obtained, in November 1951, an import licence from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports at Calcutta, for importing " iron and steel bolts, nuts set screws, machine screws and machine studs, excluding bolts, nuts and screws, adapted for use on cycles." In purported conformity with this licence the appellant imported from Japan through Bedi port 221 cases of bolts and nuts during the period April 4, 1952 to July 14, 1952. The cases were described in the Bills of the Entry which he filed as " Stove Bolts and Nuts" and he produced the import licence of November 1951 as his authority to clear the goods, One hundred and ninetytwo of these cases were cleared out of the port customs but before the rest of the 89 cases could be cleared, the Customs authorities got suspicious that the goods were mis-described and though called " stove Bolts and Nuts" in the invoices and relative documents they were really identifiable parts of bolts and nuts of the " Jackson Type single bolt oval plate belt fasteners" whose importation had been prohibited by a Notification of the Ministry of Trade issued in January 1952. Their suspicions got confirmed after examination of the samples of the nuts and bolts imported and thereafter notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why he should not be proceeded against (a) for mis-describing the goods as " stove bolts and nuts" and (b) for importing and attempting to import goods without a proper import licence this being an offence under S. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The appellant showed cause and in the written pleas which he filed he raised two defences:(1) that the description of the goods as " stove bolts and nuts" was merely a description given by the manufacturers in their invoices and he himself not being acquainted with the technical details could not be held responsible for the description given in the invoices which was copied in the Bill of Entry not being precise or exact and (2) that even if the bolts and nuts which he imported were identifiable parts of the " single bolt belt fasteners" whose importation was banned, there had been, on a proper construction of the import licence, read in conjunction with the Import Trade Regulations under which it was issued, no contravention since the ban on importation by the notification was confined to a complete:Jackson type single bolt belt fastener" and did not extend to the importation of the component parts of such a belt fastener.

(3.) These two defences were examined by the Collector of Central Excise. As regards the first he found the correspondence exchanged between the appellant and his foreign suppliers and produced by the appellant himself in his defence at the hearing, that the name " stove bolts and nut" had been decided upon by appellant himself after samples of the nuts and bolts which he desired to import had been received and examined by him. Practically therefore during the hearing before the Collector the appellant conceded that the name stove bolts and nuts' was a mis-description of the articles which he actually imported. The next question was whether the appellant was guilty of an offence of the nature described in S. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The Collector recorded a finding that the appellant was guilty of a contravention of this provision which reads: