9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (9) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icultural machinery, implements, accessories and spare parts of such machinery. The appellant is also the sole selling agent of a German firm called "Carl Platz". In October, 1956, on the strength of two import licences dated 9 February, 1956 and 16th March, 1956, the appellant imported from his principals the aforesaid firm of Carl Platz, certain parts of agricultural machinery known as Express Battery Sprayers. The relevant invoice is dated 28th October, 1956 and the Bill of Lading is dated 10th November, 1956. The appellant filed his Bill of Entry before the Customs authorities on 3rd January, 1957. When the goods arrived at the Bombay port in January, 1957, the Customs authorities, after examining certain samples, gave clearance in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive contentions of the appellant and the Customs authorities in this matter. The import licence that was granted to the appellant described the things covered by the licence as "spare parts in power-driven agricultural machinery (parts of sprayers)". Admittedly the import licence is one which relates to Item 74(vi) of Part V of Schedule I to the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 made under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Schedule will hereafter be briefly referred to as the I.T.C. Schedule. Item 74(vi) of Part V of that Schedule reads as follows :- Parts of Power-driven agricultural machinery"."(vi) The goods that the appellant actually brought were certain liquid containers which were parts of sprayers. According to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayers and how those sprayers were operated with power. The appellant admits that the spraying machines in question could also be operated by hand though, he says, the efficiency of the machines in that case would be reduced to a very great extent. Finally, on or about 25th May, 1960, one Jasjit Singh who, incidentally, was not the Collector who heard the appellant, passed an order by which he held that the appellant's firm had deliberately cleared "Express" battery sprayers in an unauthorised manner that is to say without a valid licence to cover their imports. Jasjit Singh also found that the appellant had taken out certain goods valued at Rupees 8,163/- without proper declaration or without filing an appropriate Bill of Entry and also wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e". 5.Mr. Tarkunde who appeared for the appellant before us admitted frankly that unless the Collector's decision is found to be perverse, neither the High Court nor this Court could interfere with that decision. He contended, however, that if in interpreting the I.T.C. Schedule for the purpose of finding out which was the proper item of the Schedule under which the imported goods would fall, the Collector is found to have made any mistake that would be open to correction by the High Court as well as by this Court. He also argued that while the Collector's finding on facts about the results of the demonstration before him cannot be legally questioned by the appellant, it is permissible for him to dispute the correctness of the statements m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his purpose on an unreported decision given by two Judges of this Court in M/s. Jagannath Agarwalla v. B.N. Dutta - Civil Appeal No. 801 of 1964, decided on 10-1-1967 (S.C.), where it was held : "Assuming that there is a doubt in the construction of the licence, the appellant against whom the penal provisions of Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 are sought to be enforced, is entitled to the benefit of the doubt." 8.Mr. G. Das appearing for the respondents, however, drew our attention to decisions of two Larger Benches of this Court, according to which, if the view taken by the Customs authorities as to the scope and applicability of the different I.T.C. Schedules be a reasonable view there should be no interference with the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis that it is primarily for the Import Control authorities to determine the head of entry under which any particular commodity fell; but that if in doing so these authorities adopted a construction which no reasonable person could adopt i.e., if the construction was perverse then it was a case in which the Court was competent to interfere. In other words if there were two constructions which an entry could reasonably bear, and one of them which was in favour of Revenue was adopted, the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere merely because the other interpretation favourable to the subject appeals to the Court as the better one to adopt." 9.In another decision namely Girdharilal Bansidhar v. Union of India - AIR 1964 SC 1519 another Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
