TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These licences were issued under Appendix 21 of Import Policy 1985-88 with an endorsement Duty free imports against replenishment of licence . In pursuance of the licences the appellants imported two consignments of polyester filament yarn from Japan. One consignment consisting of 509 cartons was cleared through the I.C.D./ New Delhi against Bill of Entry No. 1974, dated 31-10-1986. The second consignment consisting of 132 cartons was cleared through the I.C.D. New Delhi against Bill of Entry No. 1906, dated 23-10-1986. The appellants declared the value at US $ 2.15 per kg. The goods were assessed under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 and were allowed clearance for home consumption under Section 47 of the Customs Act. After the clearance of the goods, the appellants despatched them by lorries to Bombay. Initially, these goods were intended to be stored at Sadanandwadi Godown. However, they could not be stored there owing to shortage of space. Therefore, the goods were re-loaded in lorries and taken to Shah Nahar Industrial Estate and stored at Gala No. 211 on 13-11-1986. 3. Thereafter, there was search of the office premises of the appellants. During the search, the statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the imports cannot be declared as unauthorised. In support of his contention, Shri Asthana relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court :- (1) East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.) and (2) Fedco Private Limited v. S.N. Bilgrami (A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 415). 5. Elaborating the arguments that the Bombay Customs Collectorate has no jurisdiction to seize the goods and pass the impugned Order, he submitted that the goods were cleared for home consumption at Delhi Airport and they were brought to Bombay. Therefore, the cause of action arose in Delhi and it is only Delhi Collectorate which has the jurisdiction to confiscate and pass the impugned Order. In support of this contention, he relied upon the case of Singh Radio and Electronics v. Collector of Customs [1988 (36) E.L.T. 713 (Tri.)] and Ramnarain Vishwanath v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta [1988 (34) E.L.T. 202]. 6. His next contention is that as regards the valuation the value of Bobbins which are returnable cannot be included in the value of goods imported. Therefore, there is no basis for charges of under-valuation. He also submitted that the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in clause (8) of the Sec. 167 of the Sea Customs Act. Assuming that the principles of law of contract apply to the issue of licence under the Act, a licence obtained by fraud is only voidable, it is good till voided in the manner prescribed by law. The next decision of the Supreme Court which has considered a similar issue is Fedco Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Supreme Court held the entire scheme of control and regulation of imports by licences is on the basis that the licence is granted on a correct statement of relevant facts. That basis disappears if the grant of licence is induced by fraud or misrepresentation whether the licensee himself or some other party is responsible for the fraud or mis-representation the fact remains that in such cases the basis of the grant of licence has disappeared. It will be absolutely unreasonable that such a licence should be allowed to continue. 10. From the above it follows that where a licence is obtained on the basis of fraud or mis-representation it continues to be valid till it is voided. Then, once it is declared that the licence is obtained on fraud and mis-representation it should not be allowed to continue. In other words, the cancellati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is mis-declaration of value is based on no evidence. 14. For the reasons, we set aside the Order of the Collector and allow the appeals. 15. [Per: P.C. Jain]. - I have carefully perused the order proposed by the learned Sister Ms. S.V. Maruthi, Judicial Member but I regret I do not agree to her finding on the question of jurisdiction. On the basis of Tribunals judgment in the case of Singh Radio and Electronics v. C.C. [1988 (12) E.T.R. 561-= 1988 (36) E.L.T. 713 (Tribunal)] and Ramnarain Vishwanath v. C.C. Calcutta [1988 (34) E.L.T. 202 ERB] it has been urged by the learned advocate for the appellants that the Collector of Customs, Bombay had no jurisdiction to deal with this case inasmuch as the goods had been cleared from Custom House Delhi against Bill of Entry No. 1974 dated 31-104986 and Bill of Entry No. 1906 dated 23-10-1986.I am of the view that the facts in this case are distinguishable from the facts in the two cases relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellants. In the case of Singh Radio and Electronics consignment was cleared from Bombay Custom House and another consignment was cleared from Delhi Custom House. Both the consignments were cleared as par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
