LexPIONEER TRADERS AND OTHERS versus CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS PONDICHERRY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 349 PIONEER TRADERS AND OTHERS v. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS PONDICHERRY (B. P. SrnHA, C. ]., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and]. C. SHAH, JJ.) French Establishments-Administrative integration with India-Confiscation of goods imported and imposition of penalty in the alternative-Petition in enforcement of fundamental rights-- Maintainability-Constitution of India, Arts. 19 (1) (f), .12- French Establishments (Application of Laws) Order, 1%4, 8. R. 0. 3315, para 6-Sea C1wfom8 Act, 1878 (8 of 1878), s. 67 (8)-Import< and EJ<ports (Control) Act, IM7 (JR rif 1947), s. 3 (2). The petitioners, on patrnfP,s issued to then1 hy the French Ad1ninistration, imported goods to Pondicherry after its adnti~ nistration had been taken over by the Union of India on November 1, 1954. They had placed orders for the imports in England before August 1.5, 195-1-, after acquiring forf'ign exchange by modes approved by the French .:\dn1inistration. Before the goods arrived in Pondicherry, the Govermnent of India had issued S. R. 0. 3315 under s. 4 of the Foreign Jurisdiction 1\ct, 1947. By this notification the Sea Customs Act, 1878, the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and various other Acts mentioned in the schedule were extended to French Establishments. l~y a pre~'> communique issued by the Government of India, French licen<>c-holders were asked to apply to the (~ontroller of Imports and l~xports for validation of their licences before the shipping of goods. i\s it was too late for the petitioners to stop shipment, they applied to the Controller for the validation of their authoris:ition but this 'vas refused and the goods arrived after November l, 1954. The Collector confiscated them under s. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act 1878 read with s __ 3(2) of the !mp?rts and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and imposed penalties m the alternative for clearing them. The petitioners preferred appeals to the Central Board of Revenue on the basis of para 6 of S. R. 0. 3315 but the Bo~r~ dismisserl the appeals reducing the penalties. Revision pet1t!ons made to ~l;e Gove~nment ?f India were also rejectc<l. Relying on the dec1s10n of this Court mN:essrs Universal Imports Agency v. The Chief Controller of Import8 and EJ:ports that para 6 of S. R. 0. 3315 had the effect of protecting the imports "1962 September, 27. 1962 Pioneer Traders v. 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. Chit/Controller of Imports and ExPorls Pondiche"y made in similar circumstances such as in the present cases, the petitioners came up to this Court under Art. 32 of the Consti- tution for enforcement of their fundamental rights under Art. 19 ( 1) (f). A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions was taken on behalf of the Union of India on basis of the decision of this Court in Smt. Ujjarnbai v. The Stat,, of Uttar Pradesh. Held (per Sinha, C. ]., Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo and Shah,JJ.), that the decision of this Court in Ujjamba1'.'s case applied and the petitions under Art. 32 must fail. The questions that were raised in U1)'ambai's case not having been raised in the case of Messrs Universal Imports Agency this Court had no occasion to consider in the latter case whether the quasi-judicial authority in that case had jurisdiction to decide the matter. The petitioners could not, therefore, get out of the decision in Ujjambai's case on the ground that the tax authorities in the present cases had no inherellt jurisdiction to do so. The observations of Das,]., and Kapur J., in Ujjamhai's case with regard to Messrs Universal A.qency's case must be held to be per incuriam. M/s. Universal Imports Agency v. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, [1961 J 1 S. C. R. 305, discussed. Smt. Ujjambai v. The Stat< of Uttar Prailes/1, (1963] I S.C.R 778, explained and applied. Kailash Nath v. State of U. P., A. I. R. ( 19.17) S. C. 790, referred to. Paragraph 6 of S. R. 0. 3315, properly construed, must be deemed to have been inserted in each one of the Acts men- tioned in the Schedule and in the Sea Customs Act to have taken the place of original s. 2 of that Act. There was t hercfore no scope for the contention that Ujjambai's case had no appli- cation inasmuch as no misconstruction of any provisions of the Sea Customs Act was involved. Held, further, that the order of a Custo1ns authority imposing confisc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.