TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not before the Collector of Customs and his claim to the goods in question was not considered at all. It was urged that the appellant being a N.R.I. paid for the goods for being donated to M/s. Setwin, which is a Society for Employment Promotion Training in Twin Cities and a unit of Government of Andhra Pradesh. The said society viz. Setwin was also granted a specific import licence to import 1,000 used diesel engines valued at Rs. 60 lakhs in regard to which so far as the present case is concerned the appellant donated and paid for 368 used diesel engines for being donated to the said charitable organisation viz. Setwin, a unit of the Andhra Pradesh Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the High Court also permitted the appellant to file an appeal before the Tribunal by 30th April, 1994 with a direction that the Tribunal, if such an appeal is filed, would condone the delay and dispose of the same expeditiously. The Division Bench also directed the Customs authorities not to dispose of the goods confiscated. 3. Shri Habibullah Badsha, the learned senior counsel, contended that the claim of the appellant for clearance of the goods was not considered by the Customs authorities and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. It was urged that the plea of the Department that the appellant has no locus standi is not sustainable either in law or on facts. It was urged that on the basis of the ratio of the Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar circumstances. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the ruling of this Bench dated 8-9-1993 in the case of Care International - 1994 (69) E.L.T. 74 permitting clearance of second-hand diesel engines on payment of redemption fine. 4. Shri Gregory, the learned SDR. submitted that the appellant has no locus standi because he did not claim himself to be exporter before the Customs authorities and the Collector of Customs did not have the documents which the supplier is alleged to have sent to the Collector. If the learned Collector of Customs had received those documents, he would have certainly considered the claim as per law. 5. We have considered the submissions made before us. It is not disputed before us that it is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the owner of the said goods, which means that the first respondent continued to be the owner. How do the aforesaid provisions make any difference to this position? The definition of `importer in Section 2(26) of the Customs Act is not really relevant to the question of title. It only defines the expression `importer . The first respondent does not claim to be the importer. The provision upon which strong reliance is placed by the appellants in this behalf is the one contained in Clause 5(3)(ii) of the Imports (Control) Order. Sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 specifies conditions which can be attached to an import licence at the time of its grant. Sub-clause (2) says that a licence granted under the Order shall be subject to the conditions speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter upto the time of clearance through Customs. The Rule-making authority (Central Government), which issued the order, must be presumed to be aware of the fact that in many cases, the importer is not the owner of the goods imported at the time of their import and that he becomes their owner only at a later stage i.e., when he pays for and obtains the relevant documents. Why did the Central Govt. yet declare that such goods shall be the property of the licensee from the time of import? For appreciating this, one has to ascertain the object underlying the said provision. The interpretation to be placed upon the provision should be consistent with and should be designed to achieve such object. In this context, it should also be remem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be, some other proceedings can also be taken against him. But certainly he cannot be treated as the owner of the goods even in such a case. Holding otherwise would place the exporter in a very difficult position; he loses the goods without receiving the payment and his only remedy is to sue the importer for the price of goods and for such damage as he may have suffered. This would not be conducive to international trade. We can well imagine situations where for one or other reason, an importer chooses or fails to pay for and take delivery of the imported goods. He just abandons them. (We may reiterate that we are speaking of a case where the import is not contrary to law). It is only with such a situation that we are concerned in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
