TMI Blog1964 (3) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hundred and ninety-two of these cases were cleared out of the port customs but before the rest of the 89 cases could be cleared, the Customs authorities got suspicious that the goods were mis-described and though called Stove Bolts and Nuts in the invoices and relative documents they were really identifiable parts of bolts and nuts of the Jackson Type single bolt oval platebelt fasteners whose importation had been prohibited by a Notification of the Ministry of Trade issued in January 1952. Their suspicions got confirmed after examination of the samples of the nuts and bolts imported and thereafter a notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why he should not be proceeded against (a) for mis-describing the goods as stove bolts and nuts and (2) for importing and attempting to import goods without a proper import licence this being an offence under s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The appellant showed cause and in the written pleas which he filed, he raised two defences; (1) that the description of the goods as stove and nuts was merely a description given by the manufacturers in their invoices and he himself not being acquainted with the technical details could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any use other than as components of a belt fastener of the type whose import was prohibited. In further support of his conclusion that the appellant really intended to evade the prohibition imposed by the Notification of January 1952 by which the importation of single bolt belt fasteners was prohibited, the Collector referred to the fact that these single bolt belt fasteners were composed of three components (1) a bolt (2) a nut and (3) washers. The washers to fit into the bolts and nuts imported by the appellant were found to have been separately imported by a firm called Nawanagar Industries Ltd. which was owned or controlled by close relations of the appellant. Having thus received confirmation about the real intention of the appellant to evade the prohibition contained in the Notification and thus contravene the provisions of s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, the Collector imposed the penalty of confiscation of the goods and gave the owner under s. 183 of the Sea Customs Act the option to pay a fine of ₹ 5 1,000 to redeem the confiscated goods. He also imposed a personal penalty of ₹ 1,000 on the appellant under s. 167(37)(c) of the Sea Customs Act for misdescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. No imports will be granted from any source. It was not disputed that having regard to the terms of the import licence issued to the appellant the Notification as regards the prohibition against the importation of Jackson Oval Plate Single Bolt belt fasteners would apply to the appellant's licence and these belt fasteners could not be imported after January 1952. For the import licence specifically stated: This licence is granted under Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, Notification No. 23-ITC/ 43, dated the 1 st July, 1943, 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. The point, however, sought to be made was that the components of such a belt fastener could still be imported because it was said that the scheme of the Import Trade Control Hand-book was to specify wherever it was so intended component parts along with the articles of which they formed components, when a restriction or prohibition was intended to be imposed upon them also. It is, no doubt, true that in some cases component parts are specifically in- cluded in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Wadhwani and Anr.( [1962] 1 S.C.R. 753). We see no force in this argument. The decision of this Court referred to proceeded on the basis set out on page 757 of the Report where this Court said: The learned Solicitor-General appearing for the appellant argued the appeal on the basis that the view of the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court that on any reasonable interpretation of the items in the Schedule to the Tariff Act the consignment imported by the respondent could have been liable only to a duty of 30 per cent under item 45(3) was correct. Learned Counsel cannot therefore derive any support from this decision. Besides, what we have said earlier should suffice, to show that the conclusion reached by the authority that the offence under s. 167(8) has been made out, is not incorrect. This apart, we must emphasise that a court dealing with petition under Art. 226 is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Customs authorities and therefore the correctness of the conclusion reached by those authorities on the appreciation of the several items in the Hand-book or in the Indian Tariff Act which is referred to in these items, is not a matter which falls within the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
