ABDUL AZIZ AMINUDIN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 830 · Decided: 07-02-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
. 830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL . 
ABDUL AZIZ AMINUDIN 
!!. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
.. _ (S. J. IMAM, K. SUBBA R.Ao, R.AolllJllAR DAYAL, 
and J. R. MunHOLKAR, JJ.) 
lmporl and E:rport-Powera to prohibit or re.itrict import 
and Export~Scope of-Licence to import goods issued aubject 
to condition 110t to sell goods imported-Contravention of the 
condition-Licensee, if liable to punishment-Import and 
Export (Control) Act, 1947 (XVIII of 1947), 81. 3, 5-Importa· 
(Control) Order, 1955, cl. 5, aub-cls. (2), (4). 
The appellant as the Chairman of the Power loom Sadi 
Manufacturer's Co-operative Association, obtained the licence 
for the import of certain quantity of art silk yarn by the 
Assxiation. The licence was issued subject to the condition 
that the goods would be utilised only for consumption as raw 
material or accessories in the licence-holders' factory and that 
no portion thereof would be sold to any party. The Associa-
tion could not arrange for the nece;;sary finances and therefore 
had the goods imported through Warden & Co., who financed 
the transaction. Part of the goods received was utilised in 
accordance with the condition of the licence, the rest was how· 
ever sold by Warden & Co., and the am•>urit was paid to the 
Association by way of profits •. The appellant and the other 
members of the Association were· prosecuted for committing the 
oll'ence under s, 5 of the Imports· and Exports (Control) 
Act,1947, for having contravened the Imports (Control) Order, 
1955, but all of them were acquitted by the trial court. The 
State appealed againt the acquittal of the appellant alone 
which was 'allowed by the High Court and the appellant was 
convicted and sentepced to three months' rigorous imprison• 
ment alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/-• 
. I 
j 
Held, that the power conferred under s. 3(1) of the Act 
is not restricted merely to prohibiting or restricting imports 
at the point of entry but extends also to controlling the subs-
equent disposal of the goods imported. It is for the appropri-
ate authority and not for the courts to consider the policy, 
which must depend on diverse consideration, to be adopted in 
regard to the control of import of goods. The provision in 
cl. 5 of the order empowering the licensing authority to attach 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
831 
a condition to the effect that the goods covered hy the licence 
shall not be disposed of except in the manner prescribed by 
the licensing authority is a valid provision which comes within 
the powen conferred by s. 3 of the Act on the Central Govern-
ment. 
State of Bambay v. F. N. Balsara, [1951] S.C.R. 682 
and Glass Chaton,• Importera and Ua!rs' Association v. Union of 
India, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 862, held inapplicable. 
Daya v. Joint Gide/ Controller of Import.• and Exports, 
[1963] 2 S.C.R. 73, referred to. 
HeU, that in the present case the licence has been issued 
under the Order of 1955. The language of sub-cl. (2) of cl. .5 
of that Order is wide and permits the impositiou of a condition 
which was outside sub-cl. (5) of cl. (a) of the Order of 1948. 
Sub.cl. (4) of cl. 5 maKes it obligatory upon the licensee to 
comply with all the conditions imposed or deemed to be impos· 
ed under cl. 5. The licensing authority is competent under 
the Order to impose the condition that the imported goods be 
not sold to any person and thus to effect the ordinary ri~hts of 
the importer. The contravention of any c0ndition of a licence 
thus amounts to the contravention of the provisions of sub-cl. 4 
of cl. 5 of the Order and consequently to the contravention of 
the order made under the Act and therefore the licensee makes 
luelf liable to punishment under s. 5 of the Act. 
Ea.t India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs, [1963] 
3 S.C.R. 338 and C. T. A. Pillai v. H.P. Lohia, A.I.R. 1957 
Cal. 83, held inapplicable. 
H.Zd, that fvr contravenin~ the condition of the licence, 
actual possession of the imported 
~ood.'1 is not necessary. 
Fu,·ther, the possession of Warden & Co , wouJd be possession 
of the Association, as the former was its agent to import the 
goods. 
Held, further that the appellant aided intentionally the 
Association in dispo•in~ of the goods through Warden & Co., 
and therefore abetted the contravention of the condition of the 
licence. The case appears to be deliberate case of securing 
import licence with a view to mis-apply the goods imported 
and therefore, the sentence of three months' rigorrius impriso

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.