LexGIRDHARILAL BANSIDHAR versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961 ,J/arch 6 62 SUPRE~lE COURT REPORTS [196<1] GIRDHARILAL BANSIDHAR v. UNION OF INDIA [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND s. M. SIKRI JJ.J Sea Customs Act, 1878(8 of 1878)-PTohibition on. import of ceTtain aTticle-Component paTts of that aTtic!e if within pTohibition-Conc!usitms of Customs authorities based on seveTal items of Hand-book-CoTTectness theTeo.f, whetheT can be consideTed by High Coum-Constitution of India, ATt. 226. Evidence taken into consideTation though not mentioned in notice to show cause-NatuTal justice, if violated. The appellant who was granted a license to import "iron and steel bolts, nuts, set screws, machine screws and machine studs, excluding bolts, nuts and screws adopted for use on cycles", imported nuts and bolts which were the components. of "Jackson Type Single bolt oval plate belts fasteners" which . were described in the bill of Entry as "Stove Bolts and Nuts." The importation of "Jackso!). Type Single bolt oval plate belt fasteners" had been prohibited. When the goods were attempt- ed to be passed through the customs, the collector issued notice to the appellant to show cause why penalties should not be imposed on him(a) for misdescribing the goods and (b) for attempting to import goods without a proper import license. After receiving his explanation, penalties were imposed on the appellant. One of the facts which the Collector of Cus- toms had taken into consideration in arriving at the conclu- sion that the nuts and bolts imported were in reality the actual components of the prohibited articles was that washers, the third component of the prohib:ted art'cles were imported by a firm owned 0r controlled by clcse relations of the appellant. An appeal to the Central Board 'of Revenue from the order o~ the Collector imposing the penalties was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Con- stitution in the High Court which was dismissed in limine. On appeal by si;ecial leave: Held: (i) A component part which has no use other than as a component of an article whose importation is prohibited is included in a ban or restriction as regards the importation of that article. D. P. Anand v. M/s. T. M. ThakoTe and Co .. Appeal No. 4 of 1959 of Bombay High Court referred to. (ii) There was no force in the content.ion that the deci- sion of the Collector of Custcms was vitiated by a patent error, in that he misconstrued the sccpe of Entry 22 of Part I of the Import Trade Control Hand-book. A court dealing with a petition under Article 226 is not sitting in appeal over the decision cf the Customs Authorities and therefore the correctness of the conclusion reached by those authorities. on the appreciation of the several items in the Hand-boPk or in the Indian Tariff Act which is referred to in these items, is not a matter which falls w!thin the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 7 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 63 A. V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhiwani, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 753, referred to. (iii) Taking into consideration the importation of washers by another firm was merely evidence to confirm the conclu- sion reached by the Collector that the nuts and bolts imported were in reality the components of the prohibited article. The charge which the importer was called upon to answer did specify the nature of offence which he was alleged to have committed and lf the evidence which the appellant could have rebutted was brought on record and considered in his presence and that ·evidence conclusively proved the real nature of the articles imported, there could oe no justifiable com- plaint of violation of the principles of natural justice. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 318 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 27, 1959 of the Punjab High Court <Cir· cuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 545-D of 1959. Purshottam Trikamdas, M. V. Goswami and B. C. Misra, for the appellant. by W. S. Barlingay and R. H. Dhebar. for the respondent. March 6, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered AYYANGAR, J.--There are no merits in this appeal by special leave and it deserves tv be dismissed. The appellant obtained, in November 1951, an import licence from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports at Calcutta, for im- porting "iron and steel bolts, nuts. se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.