TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued a letter of authority in favour of the petitioners authorising them to import the goods specified in the licences. On January 28, 1972, one Ebrahim Enterprises having their offices at Hongkong offered to the petitioners a lot of brand new non-magnetic seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes of diameter 1/4 to 1 in 16/26 gauge, of all mixed lengths of 8 and more. By letter dated February 14, 1972, the petitioners offered to purchase 5 tonnes out of the lot. On February 16, 1972, Ebrahim Enterprises confirmed that the goods would be sold to the petitioners at the price of 550/- per ton. Accordingly, a contract was entered into between the petitioners and Ebrahim Enterprises on February 18, 1972. The goods arrived in Bombay Docks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders are under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The short question which requires answer is whether the petitioners have contravened clause 5(3) (iii) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. Clause 5 of the order sets out conditions of licences and sub-clause (3) of Clause 5 provides that in addition to the conditions mentioned in sub-clause (1), every licence shall be deemed to include the conditions mentioned in clause 3. Condition under sub-clause (3) (iii) is that the goods for the import of which a licence is granted shall be new goods, other than disposal goods, unless otherwise stated in the licence. The show cause notice served by the respondents, inter alia, states that the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. In the present case, none of the three authorities below have proceeded on the basis that the goods imported are second-hand goods or goods which are used one. The conclusion is recorded that the goods are disposal goods merely from the fact that the lot purchased by the petitioners contained goods which are of varying size. In my judgment, the inference drawn by the three authorities below is totally unsustainable. The expression disposal goods occurring in sub-clause (3) (iii) of Clause 5 of Import (Control) Order must be read in the context of expression new goods used in the same clause. The expression disposal goods is used as contradistinction to new goods . Once it is found that the goods imported are new, then the mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
