LexM.G.ABROL versus M/S. SHANTILAL CHHOTALAL & CO.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I M.G.ABROL A v. M/S. SHANTILAL CHHOTALAL & CO. July 27, 1965 [K. SUBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] B Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (13 of 1947), s. 3(1) and (2)-Expurts (Control) Order, 1954--The Sea Customs Act, 1878 (ss. 19, 167(8) und 178--Scrap of iron and steel-Prohibition on export without licence-Jurisdiction uf c:usronLr authorities to see whether goods in accordance K'ith licence-Licence for 'steel skull scrap' whether description of particular l'ariety relevant for exportability-Jurisdiction of courts to interfere \vith decision of custonis au1horities. In exercise of the power given in s. 3 of the Import and Export (Con- trol) Act, 1947, the Central Go•errunent issued the Exports (Control) Order, 1954 providing that no person shall export any goods of the description specified in Sch-:dulc 1 annexed thereto except under and in accordance wilh a licence granted by lhe unlral Government or by any oflicer speci- fied in Schedule II of the order. Under the provisions of the said order the respondents who were a firm carrying on in1port and export business, obi..incd from the Iron anu Steel Controller a licence permiuing them to export a certain quantity of 's1eel skull scrap'. When the goods were at the pon they were cxaminod by an officer authorised by the Controller who certified the goods as 'gt.eel skull scrap' fit for export under the said export licence. The Customs authorities however took the view that a part of the goods wa.• not 'steel skull scrap'. S, 3(2) ol the fmports and Exports Act 1947, provides that goods whooe export or import is prohibited restricted or otherwise controlled under 1, 3( I) would be deemed to be goods whoee expon was restricted undeT s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, Bild all the provision.• of the said Act would apply accordingly. Under s. 178 of the Sea Customs Act the Customo authorities ordered the confiscation of the scrap sought to be exported by the respondents, but allowed it to be shipped on the respondenta' giving a bank guarantee for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. After gi\ing a show cause notice the Additional Collector of CUstoms imposed a line on the respondents in lieu of confiscation and also a personal penalty of Rs. 35,000. InstC"ad of aeeking remedy under the Sea Customs Act the r"'pondents filed a writ petition in the High Court. It was heard and dismissed by a single Judge who however reduced the personal penalty to Rs. 1,000. Bolh sides appealed to the Division Bench. It was held by the Division Bench that since the satisfaction as to whether a particular consignment of scrap is capable of being used in India or not is to he, under the Statement of Export Policy, that of the Iron & Steel Controller the Customs authorities were not entitled to consider afresh whether that scrap was or was not usable in India. On this and other grounds the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents and dismissed the apneal of . the Customs Authorities in respect of the penalty. The Customs Authorities appealed to this Court by special leave. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that (I) the Customo Authorities w<:re entitled to aee whether the gooda sought to be exported were in accordance with the licence, and (2) the High Court should not have exercised its jurisdic!lon under Art. 226 when alternative remedies were provided in the Sea Customs Act. c D F G H • • • • 4 A B c D E M. G. ABROL V. SHANTILAL 285 HELD : (i) There is no conflict between the jurisdiction of the licen- sing authority under the Exports (Control) Order and that of the Customs Authority under the Sea Customs Act. While under the Exports (Control) Order certain artkles can be exported only under a licence issued by the appropriate authority prescribed thereunder, the appropriate Customs authority can pre•vent the export of the articles if they are not covered by such licence. To take an extreme case, if the licence issued permitted export of iron and the licensee seeks to export gold, the Customs authori- ties can certainly prevent the export of gold, for it is not covered. by the license. [291 C-D] (ii) f!owever in the present case it could not be said that the goods were not covered by the licence. Under the Exports (Control) Order iron and steel scrap is permitted tc> be exported on a licence granted by the Iron and Steel Controller. Under the &atement of Ex
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.