DY. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS & EXPORTS, NEW DELHI versus K. T. KOSALRAM & ORS

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 29-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
507 
DY. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF JMPORTS & EXPORTS, 
NEW DELHI 
v. 
K. T. KOSALRAM & ORS. 
[V. BHARGAVA AND I. D. DuA, JJ.] 
September 29, 1970 
Imports and Exports Act (18 of 1947), Import Control Order, 1955 
and Import Trade Control Policy-Condition in licence for import of 
goods-Interpretation 
of-Import of Printing 
Presses-Condition 
in 
licence against sale of printing material-If applicable to printing presses. 
Under s. 3 of the IU1ports and Exports Act, 1947, the Central Gov-
ernment is empowered to provide by Order published in the Official 
Gazette for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling the import, 
export, carriage or shipment etc., of goods of any specified description. 
The Central Government made .the Import Control Order, 1955. 
Under 
cl. 3 of this Order. the import of .any goods of the description specified 
in Sch. I of the Order is restricted except under and in accordance with 
a licence or a customs clearance permit granted by the Central Govem-
ment. 
Item 67(1) in Sch. I Part V, contains printing and lithographic 
material and a large number of various components of a printing. press • 
. In Part V of the Schedule, known as ITC Schedule of the Import 
Trade Control Handbook, relevant for the year 1960, published by the 
Government of India (Ministry of Commerce and Industry) printing and 
lithographic material are entered at serial no. 67 (I). The ITC Hand-
book, which is published .to give information of rules and procedure for 
the assistance of those interested in imports, emphasises the importance 
of correct classification with reference to .the serial number and partl of 
the ITC Schedule. 
The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry also 
publishes from time to time its Import Trade Control Policy. 
In the 
publication, relevant for the 
period April-September 
1960, the policy 
statement shows the list of items licensable to actual users, and item 
67(1 )(i) dealing with printing 
machinery (for Newspaper 
Establish-
ments and quality printers), is shown· in App. iv, Part V. 
· 
The respondents-who were the Director-in-Charge and other officers 
of a company publishing a Tamil daily newspaper-and others applied 
in Form B prescribed in Appendix Ill of the ITC Handbook, for a licence 
for importing ·a printing press. . This form is meant for the import of 
goods by actual users, when the licence is sought for import of goods 
other than those falling under the capital goods licensing procedure. The 
respol!dents stated that the raw material was required by them for print-
ing their newspaper. The ITC number and part were specifically stated 
to be No. 67(l)(i), Part V. 
An amendment of the licence·was sought 
by the respondents for import<ng one more 
printing press. arid 
while 
the matter was pending with the Government, negotiations were entered 
into by the respondents with a third party for the sale of one of the 
printing presses. 
One of the presses w~s. ultimately sold ~nd deli.vered 
to the third party. 
According to 
cond1t1on (c) of the licence iswcd 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971] 2 S.C.R. 
to the respondents the licence-holder had to utilise the goods imported 
only· for consuf!Iption as raw materia! or accesso:ies in his '?~n factory 
and their sole to or use by other partios was specifically prohibited. 
Alleging that the respondents 'tad violated cl. (c) of the licence, the 
appellant, (Deputy Chief Controller of Import3 and Exports) who was 
authorised by Statute to do so. field a complaint against them for offences 
under s. l ZOB I.P.C., s. 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act and 
cl. 5(iv) of the Imports Control Order, 1955. 
The rC'pondcnts just:fied the sale on the contention that cl, (c) did 
not cover the printing pre'8es, that this clause postulated that the goods 
covered by it should be capable of being utilized for consumption as raw 
material or acce>Sory in a factory, and that a complete printing press 
is neither raw material nor accessories and that it cannot be · said that 
by ~ing a printing press for running it the press is utilised for consump-
tion as raw material or accessory; 
The trial court convicted some of the accused, The High Court ac-
quitted them on appeal, and dismissed the petition for enhancewent of 
sentence filed by ·the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor applied 
under Art. 134(1) (c) of the Constitution for leave to appoal to this Court 
but. that application was dism

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