TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector, has not dealt with the part of the order of the Collector finds support from the order of the Tribunal because the Tribunal while setting aside the order passed by the Collector has not dealt with the question whether the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(p) on account of contravention of the requirement of Section 11C of the Act. Thus matter is required to be remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of the question whether the goods are liable to be confiscated under Sections 111(m) on the ground of misdeclaration of the value of bobbins and under Section 111(p) on the ground of contravention of the provisions of Section 11C of the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed by way of remand. - 4957-58 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain inquiries and during the course of inquiry the office of respondent No. 1 at Bombay was searched and certain documents were seized on November 1, 1986. The goods were not found stored at the place notified to the concerned customs authorities but were found stored at another place. Since the goods were not covered by regular transport vouchers as required by Section 11 of the Act and were not found at the place notified to the concerned customs authorities, they were detained by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intellgence on November 13, 1986. After investigation show cause notice dated January 15, 1987 was issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to which the appellants submitted their reply. 2.By his order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awat. As regards the plea of the respondents that sufficient space was not available and the goods were temporarily stored in some other premises, the Collector held that before storing the goods in other premises even temporarily, there should have been suitable intimation to the customs authorities and that there was technical violation in respect of the provision of Chapter IVA rendering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(p) of the Act. The Collector was also of the view that the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(m) for the reason that there was misdeclaration in value inasmuch as the value of the bobbins was not included in the valuation. Although in the operative part of the order the Collector has s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be allowed and the order of the Collector be set aside. The Judicial Member has held that the finding of the Collector that since the licences under which the goods were imported were cancelled ab intio the goods were imported in violation of the Import Control Order, 1955 and Imports and Exports Act, 1947 could not be sustained in view of the decision of this Court in East India Commercial Company Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.) = 1963 (3) SCR 338. The Judicial Member was also of the view that the confiscation of goods on the ground of misrepresentation could not be upheld since the finding recorded by the Collector that there is misdeclaration of value is based on no evidence. The Judicial Member was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel in view of the law laid down by this Court in East India Commercial Company Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta (supra) wherein this Court has said :- "Nor there is any legal basis for the contention that licence obtained by misrepresentation makes the licence honest. With the result that the goods should be deemed to have been imported without licence in contravention of the order issued under S. 3 of the Act so as to bring the case within cl. (8) of s. 167 of the Sea Customs Act. Assuming that the principles of law of contract apply to the issue of a licence under the Act, a licence obtained by fraud is only voidable; it is good till avoided in the manner prescribed by law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out to Rs. 1,85,000/- and Rs. 1,86,941 respectively (at the exchange rate of 1201 100 then prevailing and after adding usual landing charges)." The submission of Shri Choudhary is that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Collector that there is misdeclaration of value was based on no evidence. We find merit in the aforesaid contention of Shri Choudhary. 7.Shri Choudhary has also urged that although the Collector had also ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(p) of the Act for the reason that there was violation of the provisions of Section 11C of the Act, the Tribunal, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Collector, has not dealt with the part of the order of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
