LexUNION OF INDIA versus TARACHAND GUPTA & BROS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H ~57 UNION OF INDIA v. TARACHAND GUPTA & BROS. January 28, 1971 [J. M. SHELAT AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] Civil Courts-Jurisdiction of-Exclusion of jurisdiction-Wiien in· i••rred. Import Tl'ade Control Policy-Jurisdiction of statutory au/Worlty. Under cl. 3 of the Imports (Control) Order, 19SS, passed under s. 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, no person shall import any goods of the description specified. in Sch. l except in accordance with a licence, and if it was found that the goods impolrted did not conform to the description in the licence, then, without prejudice to any action that may be taken against the licensee under the Sea Customs Act, such goods would be treated as having been imported without a valid licence in thai behalf. Under Entry 294 of s. II of Part IV of Sch. l of the Import Trade Control Pvlicy (July to December 1956), import of motor.cycles and scooters was permitted under an appropriate licence, but such a licence could not be used for their import in a completety knocked down (C.K.D.) condition except by approved manufacturers. That is, there was no absolute phohibition for their import in C.K.D. condition. The words completely knocked down conditions are not used in any technical sense and have the dictionary meaning of "made or constructed SQ as to be capable of being knocked down or taken apart as for transp<ittation; in parts ready to be assembled''. Under Entry 295, except for:Jluhber tyres ,md tubes, fdr whose import a separate licence could be obtainOIJ, there are no limitations as to the number or kind of parts or accessorie's of motor cycles and scooters which can be importeil under a license obtained in res- pect of the goods. There are no remarks against this entry as there are against Entry 294, that the licence would not be Valid for import of sparo..s and accessories which, if assembled, would make motor-cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition. The respondents' licence authorised them to import goods coveted by Entry 295, and they imported certain goods which arrived in two different consignments and on two different dates. They did not contain tyres, tube> .ind saddles so thnt it was impossible to say that they constitllted tnOtor <Veles and scooters in C.K.D. condition. The Collector of Customs and the Central Board of Revenue in appeal. however. put the two consignments together and held that trade practiC'e did not require the supply of tyres and tubes and saddles while supplying motor cycles, and that therefore they made up mopeds in C.K.D. condition and were, for that reason, not the articles covered by Enli'y 295 hut articles prohibited under Entry 294. The gooc15~ were directed to be confiscated with an option to the respon- dents to pay certain sums in lieu of confis~ation, aild personal penalties. The respondent filed a suit in the High Court and the trial Judge dis- missed it on the authority of Secretary of Stale v. Mask & Co. [1948] LR. 67 I.A. 222, and that the suit was time barred under art. 14 of the Limita• tion Act. 1908. In appeal. the Divisional Bench followed Anand v. Thakore & Co .. a decision of that High Court, and allowed the appeal. In appeal to this Court, 558 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 3 S.C.R. HELD : (1) The mere fact that the goods imported by the respon- dents were so complete that when put together would make motor-cycles . and scooters in C.K.D. condition would not amount to a breach of the licence o~ of entry 295. The restriction not, to import motor-cycles and scooters 1n C.K.D. condition was against all importer holding a licence in respect of the goods covered by entry 294 u~der which he could import complete and assembled motor-cycles and scooters, and not against an importer who had a licence to import parts and accessories under entry 295. · [5(;5 G-H; 566 E] . (2) When the Collector examines .goods imported under a licence in respect of goods covered by Entry 295, what he has to ascertain is whether the goods are parts and accessories, and not whether the goods, though parts· and accessoHes, are so comprehensive, that if put together .would constitute motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition, because, it would then mean that there is in the entry a limitation against importation of all parts and accessories of motor-cycles and scooters. Such an approach, would be acting contrary to and beyond entry 295, and in non-compli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.