VASUDEV RAJANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. It is submitted by Shri Bajwa, learned counsel that petitioner is on interim bail since 3.12.92. It is submitted that petitioner has obtained licence from District Industries Officer, Govt, of Rajasthan for importing certain items, which includes D.C. Micro Motors (DCMM), Clock Movement and Calculate other set. The original licence was produced for perusal of this Court. It is submitted that certain consignments were received at Jaipur Aerodrome, which were cleared after payment of the Customs Duty as assessed by the customs authorities and were brought out after payment of octroi etc. in early Nov., 92. It is submitted that on 7.11.92 officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRl) took away certain papers/documents from factory namely Sagar Electronics situated at F-50-A Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur. On 8.11.92 they visited the Head Office and sealed certain consignments, which had been cleared by customs authorities but had not been opened. These consignments were given on Supurdginama to the applicant. However, on 9.11.92 these consignments were seized in absence of the applicant and in presence of his mother. Certain consignments, which were to be received on 9th- 10th Nov., 92 at Delhi were also seized by D.R.I. It is submitted that the customs authorities have raised objections that DCMM of voltage of 6-9 and 12 have been imported, which could not be used in watches clocks etc. There are items regarding which the licence had been issued to the applicant. It is also contended by Customs Department that the higher duty is to be paid on DCMM of above voltage which is at Rs.13/- per piece instead of 30% advalorem of the total price of the goods.

(2.) It is contended by Shri Bajwa, learned counsel that once the goods were cleared after payment of the customs duty the only remedy available with the Customs Department is to file revision under proviso to Sec. 129-D of the Customs Act, 1962. Reliance has been placed on 1987(28) E.L.T.63(Bombay) wherein this proposition of law has been laid down by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court. It is further submitted that if there was any dispute regarding the valuation, the customs authorities become functus officio after charging the customs duty and no action can be taken by D.R.I. in this respect. It is further, pointed out that Export Import Policy effective from 1.4.92 to 31.3.97 has to be issued by Ministry of Commerce, Govt, of India. Chapter-V deals with imports., Clause 22 mentions such goods, which can be imported freely without any restriction except to the extent such imports are regulated by the Negative List of imports or any other provision of this Policy or any other law for the lime being in force. Clause. 23 deals with such items, which are importable without any restriction, may be imported by any person, whether he is an Actual User or not. It is further provided that if such imports require a licence, the Actual User alone may import such goods unless the Actual User Condition is specifically dispensed with by the licensing authority. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the applicant had already obtained the licence from Govt, of Rajasthan for importing DCMM as also Calculators The consignments seized consists of DCMM and Calculators in semi knocked down conditions. It is also pointed out that none of these items are covered by the Negative List given in clause 156 of the same Policy mentioned above.

(3.) Shri R.S. Chauhan, learned counsel has given out various dates, on which, consignments of DCMM received at Jaipur and at Delhi Air-port, were seized. It is submitted that in the Quartz watches, clocks the DC Micro Motors of only 1.5 voltage can be used and not of 6,9/12 voltage. It is, therefore, submitted that these items could not have been used by the applicant himself, therefore, the same are covered under definition of smuggled items. It is also submitted that applicant does not manufacture Calculators therefore, he could not have imported Calculators in semi knocked down condition. He referred to Sec. 111-F of the Customs Act and pointed out that a person has to himself give the description of the imported goods and the purpose for which it has been imported and also the value of the goods. Under Clause-(m) of Sec. 111 such goods can be confiscated, if the value of the goods has not been declared correctly. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant does not deserve the benefit of Sec. 438 Criminal Procedure Code.