9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (8) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.f. Rupees six lakhs only Rs. 6,00,000/-. 6. Limiting factor for purpose of clearance through Customs: value * * * * * This licence is granted under the Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Order No. 17/55 dated the 7th December, issued under Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, (XVIII of 1947) and is without prejudice to the application of any other prohibition or regulation affecting the importation of the goods which may be in force at the time of their arrival." On the basis of the aforesaid licence, the petitioner company placed the following order with Messrs. Carver Cotton Gin Company of America, through their Indian agents : Re. Our Order for Delinting plant, placed with Messrs. Patel Brothers, Delhi, dated 30th May, 1960. With reference to the above as desired by your representative Messrs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner company was searched by the officers of the Calcutta Customs and certain documents were seized from the custody of the petitioner. At about the same time, the office of Patel Brothers at Bombay, the representatives of the exporter company, was also searched by the Officers of the Bombay Customs and certain other documents were seized from the custody of the said Patel Brothers. 6. Thereafter, early in February 1962, the petitioner company as also Messrs. Patel Brothers were served with two separate notices, in which it was stated as follows : "Scrutiny of the seized documents revealed that (i) the Import Licence No. 553779/60/Bom. dated 3-3-1960 was issued for '3-120 Less one Saw Gin Plant, Four Cotton Seed Delinting Machines with accessories' (ii) that the invoice and other documents which were produced before the Customs authorities for the clearance of the goods showed that only four Delinting machines were imported together with accessories and spares (iii) that actually M/s. Shree Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd., had placed order on Messrs. Carver Cotton Gin Co. of U.S.A. for six Delinting machines and that the indent as above was accepted by M/s. Carver Cot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and D. Singhi, the latter a solicitor of the firm of P.D. Himat Singka & Co., represented the petitioner company. It is alleged that Mr. D. Singhi was engaged by the petitioner company as a lawyer to make submissions on facts and law before the Additional Collector of Customs. The petitioner company makes the grievance that said Mr. Singhi was not allowed to make any submission, on the ground that the name of P.D. Himatsingka & Co. did not stand recorded in the Customs file as representing the petitioner company in their professional capacity as solicitors. The Additional Collector of Customs considered the materials placed before him and came to the following conclusion :- "In the facts and circumstances of the present case, as determined from the statement of Shri A.V. Patankar, the aforesaid correspondence of which copy was supplied to the said Cotton Mills and the explanation dated 5-3-1962 of the said Mills, I hold that the allegation referred to in paragraph I hereof are established, and that the said Mills are a person concerned in the importation without an Import Trade Control Licence valid for the purpose, and therefore in contravention of restrictions imposed under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Your petitioner had in fact imported four machines only and the accessories imported by your petitioner were not and cannot be said to be machines. (f) The first respondent acted contrary to natural justice is not allowing your petitioner's lawyer, the said Sri Singhi to make submissions on law and on facts at the hearing. * * * (i) For that in any event articles imported having been duly entered in the Custom House appraised and passed out of Customs Control the Customs Authorities had no jurisdiction any further over the same and the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction. 11. Mr. B.C. Deb, learned advocate for the petitioner company, contended, in the first place, that there had been a violation of the principles of natural justice in not allowing Mr. D. Singhi, Solicitor, to argue the case on behalf of the petitioner company. It is not the case of the petitioner company that none of the representativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rewal on behalf of the petitioner were however allowed to make their submissions but they did not desire to add anything further to their respective replies or explanation to the show cause notice." In view of what is stated above I proceed on the basis that Mr. D. Singhi attended the hearing before the Additional Collector of Customs for the purpose of making submissions on law and on facts on behalf of the petitioner company but that he neither filed a Vakalatnama nor any power executed by the petitioner company from which the Additional Collector of Customs could be satisfied that Mr. Singhi had been authorized to represent the petitioner company and to make submissions on its behalf. 13. It is not the law that a lawyer need not file a Vakalatnama before the Customs authorities. Schedule 2, Art. 10 of the Court Fees Act provides as follows :- Mukhtarnama or Vakalatnama When presented for the conduct of any one case (a) * * * (b) to a Commissioner of Revenue Circuit, or Customs or to any officer charged with the executive adminis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on the quantity of accessories to be imported. If, in these circumstances, the petitioner company imported accessories sufficient to make two extra complete delinting machines but nevertheless remained within the limits of the money value as granted by the licence, Mr. Deb contended, no offence either under the Sea Customs Act or under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act was committed. 18. Component parts of machinery and apparatus, as defined in item 72(3) of the First Schedule of the Indian Customs Tariff (Fifty-first issue), are : "Component parts of machinery as defined in Item Nos. 72, 72(1) and 72(2) and not otherwise specified, namely, such parts only as are essential for the working of the machine or apparatus and have been given for that purpose some special shape or quality which would not be essential for their use for any other purpose but excluding small tools, like twist drills and reamers dies and teps, gear cutters and hacksaw blades : Provided that articles which do not satisfy this condition shall also be deemed to be component parts of the machine to which they belong if they are essential to its operation and are imported with it is such quantities as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te sets of extra machines because the imported accessories did not include condensers which were essential parts of a Delinting machine. I cannot make much of this argument for two reasons. In the first place, it does not appear whether a condenser is an essential part of Delinting machines. In the next place, complete sets of machinery imported under the licence, were also ordered without a condenser, which may indicate that a condenser need not be an essential gadget to the type of Delinting machine imported. 25. Mr. Deb also contended that there was a good deal of difference between a machine manufactured and assembled by the manufacturer and parts of such machine imported in an unassembled condition and that the Customs authorities were wrong in thinking that the unassembled parts of the machine should be treated as a complete machine. I am not satisfied with this branch of the argument, which places undue importance on the assembling of a machine in the country of its origin. If the parts are capable of being made into a whole, then whether they are so made in the country of their origin or in the country where they are imported makes little difference. 26. Mr. Deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
