LexADDL. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA & ORS. versus BEST & COMPANY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
681
A
ADDL. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA & ORS.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
v.
BEST & COMPANY
October 23, 197 0
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.)
Imports & Exports (Control) Act. 18 of 1947-Imports
(Co11tro{)
Order 1955 issued under ss. 3 and 4A of Act-Sea Custom.< Act 8 of
1878-S. 3 of Act 18 of 1947 providing llhat goods to which an order
under $. 3 ( 1 ) applied would be deemed to be goods whose import & export
is prohibited under·'· 19 of Act 8 of 1878--Contrnvention ·of s. 19 punish-
<1ble by confiscation of goods and penalty u11der s. 167(8) of Act 8 of
1878-CI. 3 of 1955 Order prohibiting Import of specified 1100</s except.
under licence issued by Central Government-Contravention of conditions
of licence punishable under s. 5 of Act 18 of 1947 as amended by Act 4
of 1960-Whether good.• imported against conditions of licence can be
confiscated a~d penalty imposed on the offender under s. 5 of Act 18 of
1941 read withs. 167(8) of Act 8 of 1878.
Under s. 3 of Imports & Exports Control Act 18 of 1947 all goods to
which any order under sub-s. (I) applied shalt be deemed tn be goods
of which the Import & Export has been prohibited under s. 19 of the Sea
Customs Act 8 of 1878, and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect
accordingly.
In exercise of power conferred by ss. 3 and 4A of the Act
18 of 1947 the Central Government issued the Imports (Control) Order
1955. Clause 3 of the Order prevented the importation of any goods of
the description specified in Schedule I. except under and in accordance
wit.h a licence or a customs clearance permit granted by the Central Gov-
ernment or \!}' any officer specified in Sch. II. Section 5 of Act 18 of
1947 as arig1nally. enacted provided: "If any person contravenes any
order made or deemed to have been made under the Act, he shall without
any prejudice to any confiscation or penalty to which he may be liable
under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act 1878. as applied by sub-s. ::
of s. 3 be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
one year, or with fine. or with both." By the Imports & Exports (Controll
.\mendment Act 4 of 1960 contravention of any conditions of a licence
granted in accordance With the terms of any order passed under the Act
was also made punishable under s. 5.
The respondents imported certain goods from West Germany un<ler
licence granted by the Ministry of Commerce.
According to the Gov-
ernment the goods imported were in excess of the terms of the licence
and accordingly the respondents were charged
with having committed
offences under s. 167(8) read with s. 3(2) of Act 18 of 1947 and the
goods imported by them were confiscated.
In lieu of the confiscation.
however, a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - was imposed on the respondenb.
A
personal penalty of Rs. 25000/ - was also imposed. The respondents filed
a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge
but .allowed by the Division Bench.
With certificate the Collector
of
Customs appealed. The only question for consideration was whether for
breach of a condition of the licence penalty may be imposed under s. 5 of
Act 18 of 1947 read withs. 167(8) of Act 8 of 1878.
HELD: The appenl must be dismissed.
Fo·r breach of any condition of a licence it is open to the authorities
under s. 5 of Act 18 of 1947 as amend"<!. te direct prosecution but no
oG82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971 J 2 S.C.R.
order confiscating goods and imposing penalty in lieu thereof could be
made. The order of confiscatien could only be made under s. 167 cl. 8
-0f Act 8 of 1878 : in terms cl. 8 of s. 167 provides for confiscation of
the goods importation or exportation of which is for the time being' prohi·
bited or restricted by or under Ch. IV of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The
notification of which the contravention was alleged was not issued under
s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act 1878 but under the Imports & Exports
(Coiltrol) Act 1947. The High Court was therefore right in holding
that the scope of power under the Sea Customs Act was not enlarged by
the amendment to s. 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act. There
is nothing in the amended s. 5 of the Imports & Expor:s (Control) Act
which warrants the view that the provisions of the Sea CU&toms Act, 1-878,
may be invoked to punish the breach of a condition of a licwce granted
•under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. (686 B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.