LexM/S. UNIVERSAL IMPORTS AGENCY AND OTHERS versus THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS AND OTHERS. (AND CONNECTED PETITIONS)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 305 foreign judgment. (4) Clause 3 of art. 4 is in the nature r960 of a deeming clause and makes the decree of the Th A . P k. t (W t p · b) d · f f e ssocialed a istan co?r . . es. U~Ja a ecre~ o a c_ourt o Hotels of India, competent iunsdwt1on m East Puniab (India). (5) Ltd. & An~ther Situs of the decree is not in Pakistan alone but the v. legal fiction applies to that also, and (6) the evacuee R. B. Jodha Mal laws of Pakistan do not affect the effectiveness of the Kuthalia decree in India. I would therefore allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court. The appellants will have their costs throughout. BY COURT: In view of the majority Judgment, the appeal is dismi8sed with costs. · Appeal dismissed. M/s. UNIVERSAL IMPORTS AGENCY AND ANOTHER v. THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS AND OTHERS. (AND CONNECTED PETITIONS) (B. P. SINHA, c. J., JAFAR IMAM, A. K. SARKAR, K. SuBBA RAO and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) French Establishments-Agreement to import goods-De facto transfer of administration to India-Confiscation of goods imported -Validity-" Things done or omitted to be done", meaning a/- French Establishments' (Application of Laws) Order, r954, cl. (6)- Sea Customs Act, r878 (8 of 1878). s. 167(8). In pursuance of an agreement dated October 2r, r954, en- tered into between the Government of India and the Govern- . ment of France whereby there was a de facto transfer of the administration of Pondicherry and other French Settlements to the Government of India as and from November I, r934, a noti- fication dated October 30, 1954, was issued by the Government of India called the French Establishments' (Application of Laws) Order, r954, by virtue of wlfich certain enai:tments specified in column (3) of the Schedule which included the Sea Customs Act, Kapur ]. August a3. 1960 U•i11ersal f.t11porls Agem:y v. CAie/ Ctmlroller of 1 ... pa.1, 6- EMporls 306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961) 1878, the Imports & Expdrts Trade (Control) Act, 1947, and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, were extended to Pondicherry. Paragraph 6 of the Order provided: "Unless otherwi.e specilically provided in the Schedule, all laws in force in French Establishments immediately before the commence- ment of the Order, which correspond to enactments specilied m the Schedule, shall cease to have effect, save as respect things done or omitted to be done before such commencement". Shortly prior to the transfer of the administration of l'o:idi- cherry to India, the petitioners had entered into certain agree- ments with foreign suppliers for the import into Pondicherry of diverse goods. Pondicherry was, pnor to the transfer to India, a free port without any restrictions on imports, except on a few items, and the importers could acquire foreign exchange either at the official rate in respect of some transactions or at the open market in respect of others. The petitioners had with the consent of the French authorities obtained through the banks foreign exchange from the open market to finance their imports and had, with the foreign exchange so acquired, opened irrevoc- able letters of credit in favour of their foreign suppliers un acc- ount of the price of the goods to be supplied. On or about November l, 1954, the goods covered by the aforesaid imports were in different stages o( shipment and arrived at the port of Pondicherry in January and February 1955· The Collectur of Customs treated the imports of the goods as unaut110rised and confiscated the same and gav•! the petitioners an option to pay 111 lieu of confiscation a penalty, on the ground that the petitioners had not obtained a licence for bringing the goods into Pondi- cherry and that s. 167(8) o( the Sea Customs Act, 1878, was · contravened. The petitioners claimed, inter alia, that the tran- sactions entered into by them with the foreign dealers wore "things done" within the meaning of para. lJ of the l'rench Establishments' (Application o( Laws) Order, 1954, and that therefore the imports by the petitioners were within the saving clause of that paragraph. Held, (Per Sinha, C.].. Imam and Subba Rao, JJ. Sarkar and Shah, JJ .. dissenting): (1) that on its proper interpretation, the express10n " things done " m para. 6 o( the French Establish- ments' (Application of Laws) Order, 1954· was comprehensive enough to take in not only things done.but al
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.