COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS., MADRAS & ANR. versus C. TARACHAND

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 852 · Decided: 05-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

852 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS., MADRAS & ANR. 
v. 
C.TARACHAND 
April 5, 1974 
[M. H. BEG AND R. S. SARKARIA, JI.] 
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947-S. 3-Scope of. 
The respondent had imported sewing machine needJcs 
under a 
licence. 
Claiming that the import licence did not cover the needles for domestic sewing 
machines the Custom.Ii Authorities imposed a penalty and confiscated the goods. 
The 1t$pondent cJaimed that the needles imported could be used in both domestic 
and industrial 11ewing Ipachines or were interchangeable and that the prohibition 
A 
B 
was not meant for such interchangeable needles 
which could 
be 
used 
for 
c 
"domestic" as welt as "industrial" sewing machines but was confined to needles 
capable of being used only for domestic sewing machines. A single Judge of 
the High Court :.et aside the penalty but confirmed the order of confiscation. 
On appeal the Division Bench; without going into the other question raised 
by the respondent. held that there was no prohibition or restriction during the 
relevant period for the import of domestic sewing machine needles. It therefore 
quashed the confiscation order. 
Allowing the appeal and ren1itting the case to the High Court, 
D 
lfELD : There was the required prohibition against import without licence 
of needles specified. Sec. 3 of the im_ports & ~xports (ControJ) 
Act, 
1947 
clearlv provides·for .Prohibition and restriction of imports and cl. 3 of the Import 
Control Order directly prohibits, in unambiguous and mandatory terms that "no 
iJCrson shall import any goods of the description specified in Schedule I except 
under and in accordance with the licence or a customs clearance permit granted 
by the Central Government or by any officer specified in Schedule II''. 
This 
ianguage cannot have a ·meaning other than that the prohibition was· there so 
E 
long as the goods of the description given in the schedule were not imported in 
accorda;Dce with the import licence. [856 E; 854 H; 855 A-Bl 
(2) The prohibition is conditional in as mu Ch as it can be lifted by a licence 
which permits it; the question whether the respondent's licence covered 
the 
particular goods imported, was not specifically considered or decided by the 
division bench. . The division bench did not also consider it necessary to decide· 
whether any rules of natural justice weI'e violated at the inquiry held. 
If the 
customs authorities had not acted in accordance with law 
in holding the 
F 
imported goods to be of the prohibited category the High Court could correct 
th;s error of law. [855 D·El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1161 of 1973. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order <lated the 
26th June, 1973 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 381 
of 1972 and 106 of 1973. 
G 
G. L. Sanghi and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants. 
K. Jayaram, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BEG, J.-The Colleetor of Customs, Madras, has· c.ome up, by 
11 
grant of special leave to appeal, against the judgment of a Division 
Bench of the Madras High Court quashing an order of the 
Cen~ral 
Government which confirmed an order of' the appellant confiscatmg 
( 
I 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
' 
F 
G 
' 
H 
/ 
CUSTOMS COLL. V. TARACHAND (Beg, /,) 
853 
a . large quantity of sewing mai:hine needles. The respondent had 
imported the llf!Cl(lles under a liceuce which did not, according to the 
case of the Customs' Department, cover the goods imported. A learned 
Single Judge of the High Court had set a5ide .a penalty of Rs. 5,000/· 
imposed upon the respondent as the sewing needles imported by tlie 
petitioner-respondent were not, according to the learned Judge, proved 
to belong to the prohibited class, but the confiscation order had, rather 
incoosistently, been maintained. On an appeal by the respondent 
against the refusal to·quash the confiscation order, the Division Bench 
of the Madras High Court came to the conclusion that there was no 
prohibition at all as contemplated by Section 3 of the Import Control 
Order, 1955, made under Sections 3 & 4A of the Imports & Exports-
(Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), so that no 
further questiol). need be considered. The Division Bench, therefore, 
did not go into the Other questions raised by the respondent, who wa.• 
petitioner before the High Court, relating to violation 6f rules of natural 
justice or the merits of the case that the sewing needles imported were · 

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