LexUNION OF INDIA versus SAMPAT RAJ DUGAR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA
I'.
SAMP.AT RAJ DUGAR AND ANR.
JANUARY 21, 1992
[S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMJ AND
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.]
!111ports (('011rrol) (Jrder, /'J55 ·
A
B
Cla11se
5(3)
(ii)-llhie<:t
a11d
i111e1pretcllio11 of-fmpol'I
lice1u:e--( '011ditio11 clee111ing guods i111ported as pro11erty r?llic:ensee al the C
ti111e
<~( i11111ort and 11pto (:/eura11t:e tltro11gh ('usto111s-IV!ten not
l1ppl it'.ahle--< ;oods i1111Jrn·ted-ln1port er /i1i/ing ro c/eur goods Ji·o111 ('us-
to111s hy 111aking pay111e11ts and re1:ei1'i11g dot:11111e11rs
r~l title sent hy
scller-Wlle1her goods re111ain proper(1· t~(selfer-rVht'tlier seller e11titled
to re-exporl sue Ii goods--('usto111 A 1:t. J 'J62 : Sett ion 2 ( 26)-f 111por1 1111(/
Exporr l'olicy. I fJ85-86 : /
1ara 26 (ir).
D
('11sto111s Act, ff)(J2:
S('<:tio11 I I I (ti} ---A/Jf1/i1·ahility (~l--<ioods i111porred 111Hlcr 1•a/id li-
r·ence and nor 1·011tra1y to la11•----,\'1thser111e11f 1:11111:ellatio11 r~llice11ce-lf11tetl1er
renders i111port r·o11tr111:r to lair and goods i111purtetl liuhlej(Jr cor!fisr:ation
E
Ser:tio11 111 (o)-ffl1e11 app/ii:ah/e-!ntport licence granti!d s11ly.e"i·f
to l'011ditions-No11-oh.,·er1 1u11r:e o( r:o11di1ion.,· hy i11111orter in earlier
co11sii:1111u'11/s-VVhetl1ei· i111/ir:ati1·e 11{ si111ilar l/l!l/-ohsen'aru:e i11 suhse-
.
.
.
ljltent t :onsig11111e111s also--{ _·, Jl!/isr :at ion l !!'g1 H Jds-1¥ Itel herjust!f ied---!111;Jorrs
a11d J;~rports (('0111rol) Ai:r. 1947: Section 4-<.i.
F
l11ti'l'fJl'efatio11 _r!(Stat11res-VVonls and phrases take cololf1 ji·o111 tl1e
co111e.rt i11 1rhil:h they an' 11sed.
H'onls and l'hrases--'l'roj){'rty of" r111d 'Vest '-/l,fea11i11;.: r~(
G
The second respondent doinJ..! husinl'SS in India, ohtaincd an
advance hnport licence for in1portini: ran1 silk. The liccncr n·as J!rantcd
suhjcl't to the l'Olldition that ra"· silk ilnportcd '''ould he utilised for
1nanufacturinJ! and exportinJ! ~arrncnts. Soml'tirnc thereafter. the
Scl:ond respondent rcccivl•d thrCl' consif!11111ents hut did not fulfil the
stipulatl~d condition. Suhscqucntt~·. the first respondent, an Indian
H
269
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1992J I S.C.R.
A
national, residing abroad, and doing business, sent certain quanti-
ties of raw silk in four lots, deliverable to the second respondent ..
The requisite documents were sent to the first respondent's bankers
with instructions to deliver the same to the second respondent on
receiving the payment. When the four consignments arrived in In-
dia, the second respondent appeared before the customs authorities
B
and claimed the right to take delivery of the goods, but the authori-
ties, who had come to know by then of the non-compliance of the
stipulated condition with respect to the three earlier consignments
and also of the alleged misrepresentation made by her while obtain-
~
ing the Advance import licence, initiated proceedings against her
and two other persons. In view of the proceedings, the second re-
-
C
spondent failed to make the payment and receive the documents;
D
E
F
G
H
she did not take any steps to clear the goods, in effect abandoning
them.
The first respondent appeared in the proceedings on his own
and submitted that title to the goods had not passed to the second
respondent and he was still the owner of the goods, and therefore,
the said goods could not be confiscated or proceeded against for
violations, if any, committed by the second respondent, and that he
was •not a party to the misuse of the earlier imports, nor was he
aware of the alleged fraud practised by the second respondent in
obtaining the advance import licence, and that he may be permitted
to re-export the goods in question.
While the proceedings were pending, the competent authority
cancelled the advance import licence granted to the second respond-
ent.
The Collector of Customs was of the view that as the advance
import licence had since been cancelled by the competent authority
there was no valid import licence for clearance of those goods, and
since for re-exporting the said goods, a valid import licence was
necessary and because it was not there, and also because the second
respondent had abandoned the goods, permission for re-export could
nof be granted. Accordingly, he rejected the claims of the first re-
spondent, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the second respondent
and ordered confiscation of the four consignments in question.
Aggrieved, the fExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.