LexHIND TRADING COMPANY versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c '. e- D E F . . ' G H .· 'Ii; HIND TRADING COMPANY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. October 28, 1968 [S. M. S!KRI. R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] Lands Customs Act. 1924, .Ill'. 5(3) and 7(1)-Sea Customs Act, 1878, s. 167(8)-Foreign Exchang.e Regulation Act, 1947, s. 23A- lmport of Chinese Dollars from Tibet via Sikkim-Dollars in two lots covered by two licences froni Reserve Bank of India-Licences show/I and duty paid at Land Customs station-Applications made for permits to allow goods to cross frontier-Subsequently one lot found with wrong application-Effect-Whether any offence under above provisions com· mitted-S. 5 (3) of Land Customs Act whether requires permit to ac- -<·o~Hpa11y goods to ultimate destination--Certiorari to Tribunal when lies. The appellant imported 1,65,000 pieces Chinese silver dollars from Tibet through Sikkim State under two Reserve Bank import licences. As there were two licences the dollars were divided into two lots. One lot bore the mark 'H.D.' and the other 'H.N.' The appellant made two appli- cations bearing Nos. 32 and 34 to the Officer-in-charge, Land Customs Sta- tion, for the grant of permits for passing the goods across the frontier. Ap- plication No. 32 related to the lot marked 'H.N.' and the application No. 34 related to the lot marked 'H.D.' On May 16, 1957 the two consignments arrived at the land customs station, Kalimpong and were examined and appraised by the land customs officer-in~charge of the station. On the duty being paid, the officer endorsed the applications certifying that the duty was paid and permitting the import of the goods. The consignments there were then delivered at Siliguri to the carriers for carriage by air to Dum Dum. On May 17. 1957 one consignment to- gether with application No. 34 was sent by plane from the Sonapur air- 'Strip and on the same date reached Dum Dum and was delivered to the appellant at Calcutta. On May 18, 1957 the Range Officer, Matidhar seized the second consignment bearing the marks 'H.D.' together with · application No. 32 when they were aboui to be despatched from the Sonapur airstrip. The seizure was made under s. 5 (3) of the Land Customs Act on the ground that the mark on the consignment was 'H.D.' whereas the accompanying import application No. 32 related to the con- signment marked 'H.N.' The Collector of Land Customs. Calcutta after hearing the appellant held that off enc°' under s. 5 (3) and s. 7 (I) of the Land Customs Act, 1924. and s. 167(8) read with of the Sea Cus- toms Act. 1878 had been committed by the appellant. He directed con- fiscation. of the goods under those sections read with s. 23A of the Foreign Exchan.ge Regulation Act. 1947. Departmental remedies having failed the appellant filed a writ oetition in the High Court. Anpeal in this Court was filed by the appellant with certificate. The questions that came up for con.;;ideration were inter alia: (i) whether the "ei7ure and confiscation of the goods was authorised bv s. 5 (3) of the Lan.d Custom-.; Act, 1924. and (ii) whether the finding that the appellant had committed offences under that section and other provisions of ]aw v.,ras perverse and liahle to be quashed. HELD: (i) Section 5(3) of the Land Customs Act. by itself doe- not reqmre that all imported goods must always at all times, and at all places be accompanied by a permit. After the permit the goods become a part and parcel of the mass of other like goods in India. There is no outv 53, SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 2 a.c.R. to keep the permit with the consignment for all times and at all places. Nor is the importer under a duty to keep the consignment in his hands. He can sell portions of it to different buyers and obviously he could not give the permit to every consumer. [540 G-HJ Before March 29, 1968 when the Central Board of Revenue framed the Chinese Silver Dollars (Import) Rules, there was no provision in the Act or Rules in force which required the appellants to keep the permits at Sonapur airstrip with the dollars seized on that date. Section 5(3) was not infringed when the carriers did not produce the permit concern- ing the goods at the Sonapur airstrip on May 18, 1957, and the goods could not be confiscated under s. 5(3). [5'41 CJ (ii) Nor were the goods liable to confiscation under s. 7(1) of the Land Customs Act. There was no evidence to show that the seized dollars were not covered by licences.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.