JIYA ULLAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2003 and 01.04.2003, respectively, passed by Sri S.N. Tripathi, Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Court No. 1, Moradabad in Original Suit No. 431 of 1991 instituted by plaintiff -appellant whereby it has dismissed suit with cost quantified at Rs. 2,000/ -.

(2.) The plaint case set up by appellant is that he is proprietor of firm M/s. Jiya Ullah, son of Sami Ullah, 4/E -20, Faizganj, Purvi Moradabad and engaged in the business of export of German Silver Artware, Copper Handicrafts and other Handicraft articles. He required import of raw material for which he applied for an import license by submitting an application in the office of Joint Chief Controller, Import and Export, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'JCCIE'). Plaintiff was granted an advance licence dated 14.04.1983 for importing goods of value of Rs. 3,82,000/ - (CIF). Plaintiff could not place any order for import and in meantime lost his bag containing above licence. He lodged an FIR in Police Station, Mugalpura, District Moradabad, on 14.05.1983 complaining loss of import licence. He also informed JCCIE vide registered letter dated 15.05.1983 regarding above loss. Information was also given by plaintiff to Deputy Manager, Bombay Port Trust vide letter dated 16.05.1983 with request, if any goods are imported under the said licence the same be not cleared so that licence may not be misused. Plaintiff did not use import licence in any manner whatsoever. Deputy Collector (Customs), Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'DC(C)') vide letter dated 07.11.1985 raised a demand of Rs. 5,46,069/ - from plaintiff towards outstanding dues of custom duty. Plaintiff replied vide letter dated 18.11.1985 that he has not imported any goods, hence no duty is payable. On 27.04.1991 plaintiff received a letter from Assistant Collector (Customs) for recovery of Rs. 4,56,069/ - as arrears of land revenue for which recovery certificate was forwarded to Collector, Moradabad. Since plaintiff has not utilized import licence, no import of any goods was made by him and somebody else, if has misused licence, for that, Customs Department officials are responsible. Plaintiff is not liable to pay any custom duty. Hence he sought declaration that letter dated 07.11.1985 issued by DC (C) for recovery of Rs. 5,46,069/ - and recovery certificate dated 27.03.1991 are null, void and illegal and on the basis thereof defendants be restrained from making any recovery from plaintiff in any manner.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants A, B, C i.e. Secretary, Finance Ministry, New Delhi; Chief Controller, Import & Export, New Delhi and JCCIE, by filing their written statement dated 14.09.1992, wherein it was stated that for the first time plaintiff gave information of loss of licence on 27.01.1984 and also filed an affidavit to this effect. Thereafter he also sent a reminder letter dated 15.02.1989 in which he mentioned about letter dated 27.01.1984 whereby information of loss of licence was conveyed. Prior to that certain import of goods on import licence dated 14.04.1983 was already effected. Plaintiff imported 30.5 Metric Ton (in short 'M.T.') Brass scrap worth Rs. 3,62,791/ - on 06.01.1984 whereupon he was liable to pay custom duty of Rs. 5,46,069/ -. The aforesaid amount having not been paid by him, a demand letter was issued and thereafter recovery proceedings were initiated. In additional pleas defendants took plea that suit is not maintainable; it is barred by Sec. 3 of U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'UP Act, 1972'), necessary parties were not impleaded and that the recovery is in accordance with law, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.