TARACHAND GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of their suit to recover a sum of Its. 45,100 from the Union of India represented by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The suit came to be filed under the following circumstances.

(2.) THE plaintiffs are a partnership firm carrying on business in Bombay. On July 10, 1956 they obtained from the Controller of Imports a licence permitting them to import into India 'Motor Vehicle parts as per Appendix XXVI of J. D. 56 Red Book' the approximate value c.i.f. was stated as Rs. 46,449. The licence which is at exh. A specifically refers to three entries in the I.T.C. Schedule namely 293, 295 and 297 -IV. The licence was valid upto July 31, 1957.

(3.) PURSUANT to this view the Customs Authorities issued a notice to show cause against the plaintiffs on October 22, 1957 calling upon them to explain, within seven days of its receipt, why penal action should not be taken against them and the goods confiscated under Section 167(5) of the Sea Customs Act. Obviously the offence suggested was the importing of unlicensed articles into India. The plaintiffs were informed that 'the goods have been mis described as motor cycle parts whereas goods covered by the two be (bills of entry) Nos. shown on the obverse are P51 pcs (Pieces?) 'Rixe Mopeds' in CKD condition' and these goods appeared to have been imported in contravention of the Import Trade Control Order issued under Section 8 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. It was alleged that their import licence was not valid for the import of 51 'Rixe' Mopeds. Their goods were classifiable under entry No. 294 of Part IV of the Schedule to the Import Trade Control Order. The plaintiffs justified the import under their license and under entry No. 295 of Section II of the Schedule which runs as follows: - Section -II Part and S.No. Description Licensing Policy for Esta - Validity of Remarksof I. T. C. Authority. Wished Licence.Schedule. Importers1 2 3456Part IV295. Articles (other than I. T. C. Twelve N. C. viderubber tyres and tubes) months. Appendix I.adapted for use as The detailedparts and accessories of licensing po -rnotor cycles and licy is givenmotor scooters, except in Appendixsuch articles as are also XXVI. adapted for use as parts and accessories of motor cars. Entry No. 294 is as follows : - 294. Motor cycles and motor scooters : -(i) Motor cycles and I.T.C. 50% Six Months (i) Quota licences issued for Scooters. Motor cycles will be valid torthe import of Scooters. (ii) Licences granted under this item will not be valid for the import of motor cycles/scooters in a completely knocked down condition.(iii) Applications from approved manufacturers for import of motor cycles/scooters in c.k.d. condition will be considered ad hoc by C. C. I. in consultation with Development Wing.(ii) Auto -attachment. I.T.C. 30% Twelve (i) Additional licences, for on the Months. auto -attachments will be basis granted to Established of imports Importers of cyclesof motor on an ad hoc basis.cycles and (ii) Applications from approvedscooters manufacturers for import ofauto -attachments in c.k.d. condition will be considered ad hoc by C. C. I. in consultation with Development Wing. The plaintiffs showed cause and urged that they had strictly complied with the terms of their licence and that the goods fell within the ambit of Entry No. 295 but the Authorities did not accept this contention and by the two orders both passed on November 80, 1957 the Collector of Customs, Bombay held that the plaintiffs had failed to produce a valid import licence and had imported the goods in contravention of the Import Control Order, under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. He held the plaintiffs guilty of having committed offences under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and imposed several penalties as follows : (1) Confiscation of goods of both the consignments, (2) Option under Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act to pay in lieu of confiscation a fine of Rs. 28,000 in respect of the 'Jaladharti' consignment within four months. (3) A personal penalty of Rs. 9,600 in respect of the said consignment; (4) In respect of the 'Meerkerk' consignment option under Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act to pay in lieu of confiscation a fine of Rs. 8,800; (5) A personal penalty of Rs. 3,700, in regard to the said consignment. Thus the plaintiffs were penalised to the extent of Rs. 13,300 and had to pay in all Rs. 45,100 in order to get possession of their goods the amount which they now claim from the defendants in the suit.