1. Import validity dispute — Contract requiring pre-dispatch inspection of goods. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1673
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C.Sen : S.P.Bharucha
Collector Of Customs, Bombay
Versus
Rakesh Press, New Delhi
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 10/10/96
A contract requiring the inspection of purchased goods prior to their dispatch is still considered a firm contract for the purpose of determining the validity of an import.
Headnote:(A) Customs Law - Validity of import - Firm contract - A contract that requires inspection of the goods purchased prior to despatch is, nonetheless, a firm contract. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against the order of an appellate tribunal regarding the validity of an import. The dispute centered on whether a contract requiring the inspection of goods prior to their dispatch remained a firm contract.
Findings of Court:
The view taken by the tribunal is consistent with law, and the validity of the import has been rightly decided in favour of the respondent.
Issues: Whether a contract requiring inspection of goods prior to dispatch constitutes a firm contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a contract requiring inspection of goods prior to dispatch is nonetheless a firm contract.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
customs and excise
-
import validity
- firm contracts (Para 1)
-
import validity
-
customs and excise
Table of Contents
2. Whether a contract requiring pre-dispatch inspection of goods constitutes a firm contract. (Para 1 )
3. The court found the tribunal's view that pre-dispatch inspection requirements do not negate the status of a firm contract to be consistent with law. (Para 1 )
4. A contract requiring inspection of purchased goods prior to dispatch is a firm contract. (Para 1 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2 )
6. Does a requirement for pre-dispatch inspection of goods invalidate a firm contract?
No, a contract that requires inspection of the goods purchased prior to dispatch is nonetheless considered a firm contract. (Para 1 )
(1) WE have seen the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal which is under appeal and the order of the Collector of Customs which was questioned before the tribunal. We have heard the learned counsel. We think that the view taken by the tribunal is consistent with law, that a contract that requires inspection of the goods purchased prior to despatch is, nonetheless, a firm contract. The validity of the import, therefore, has been rightly decided by the tribunal in favour of the respondent.
(2) SINCE the appeal was admitted only in respect of the validity of the import and not on the question of valuation, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
