(1.) IN this appeal by a writ petitioner who unsuccessfully sought to quash the orders passed by the first and second respondents, namely, the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Collector of Customs, Madras, an interesting and somewhat difficult question of interpretation of the provisions of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 (here in after called 'the Order') arises. To be more, specific, the question is whether on the facts of the case, it is Clause 3(3) of the Order that would apply or Clause 10 -C thereof.
(2.) THE appellant before us is a letter -of -authority holder for a firm to whom licence had been issued, admittedly validly, for the import of photographic films. He opened an irrevocable letter of credit on 11th January, 1974 in favour of the foreign exporter and the goods were despatched on 24th July, 1974 and they arrived at the Port of Madras and a Bill Entry was filed on 18th September, 1974. The description of the goods given in the licence stated:
(3.) THE condition in Clause 8(ii)(b), as we have extracted above, had imposed an obligation on the licensee to utilise the goods imported in the factory of the licensee specifically for the manufacturing process carried out by it. The licensee was Messrs. East Coast Sea Foods Corporation. It had refrigeration unit and also a Printing Press. Even before the goods arrived in the Port of Madras, the licensee had sold the freezing plant, and after the arrival of the goods, they had also sold the Printing Press. The Customs authorities got information about these acts of the licensee. Thereupon, they came to the conclusion that the licensee was not in a position to comply with the conditions of the licence and took the view that section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Clause 3(3) of the Order would enable them to confiscate the goods that had been imported by the licensee with the aid of the letter -of -authority holder who had advanced moneys necessary for the import. Section 111(d) of the Customs Act reads thus: