Back
1967 Supreme(Goa) 9
Goa High Court
R. S. BINDRA
Joao Santana Gomes - Appellant
Versus
Union Government of India - Respondent
Decided On : 04/27/1967
S.K. Sonak with Porus Mehta, for Petitioner; S. Tamba, Govt. Pleader for Respondents.
The import of goods in excess of the value permitted by the license constitutes a violation of the license itself and not merely a violation of the conditions of the license.
Headnote:
IMPORT LICENSE - ENHANCEMENT OF VALUE - CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (CONTROL) ACT, 1947 - IMPORTS (CONTROL) ORDER, 1955 - VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION - INTERPRETATION OF LICENSE CONDITIONS - CONFISCATION OF GOODS - PENALTY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Joao Santana Gomes, was issued an import license for spare parts of motor vehicles from foreign countries. Due to devaluation of the Indian rupee, the Ministry of Commerce issued a public notice asking importers to apply for necessary enhancement of the value of their licenses. Joao applied for enhancement, and the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports reassessed the value of the unutilized sum. However, when two consignments ordered by Joao reached the port, customs authorities raised an objection that the value of the goods sought to be imported was above the balance value of the license. Consequently, the goods were detained, and proceedings were initiated against Joao for alleged violation of import license. The Collector of Customs held that the imports were unauthorized and the goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, read with the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Joao filed a writ petition challenging the order of confiscation and seeking release of the detained goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notification issued by the Central Government extending the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman, and Diu was valid and operative. The court also held that the endorsement made on the import license indicating the enhanced value did not amount to a valid reassessment of the balance amount available to the petitioner. The court further held that the petitioner's import of goods in excess of the value permitted by the license constituted a violation of the license itself and not merely a violation of the conditions of the license. Therefore, the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, were justified.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification extending the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman, and Diu was valid and operative? 2. Whether the endorsement made on the import license indicating the enhanced value constituted a valid reassessment of the balance amount available to the petitioner? 3. Whether the petitioner's import of goods in excess of the value permitted by the license constituted a violation of the license itself or merely a violation of the conditions of the license?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notification issued by the Central Government extending the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman, and Diu was valid and operative. The court relied on Section 5(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation No. 12 of 1962, which provided that the rules, notifications, etc., issued under the Imports Act shall extend to the Union Territory if the Central Government, by notification in the official gazette, otherwise directs. The court found that the Central Government had issued such a notification, and therefore, the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Regulation were complied with. 2. The court held that the endorsement made on the import license indicating the enhanced value did not constitute a valid reassessment of the balance amount available to the petitioner. The court examined the arithmetical figures on the license and the public notice issued by the Ministry of Commerce and concluded that there was no occasion for the petitioner to misunderstand the true implications of the endorsement. The court also noted that the petitioner had been in possession of the license all along and could not have labored under any mistake. 3. The court held that the petitioner's import of goods in excess of the value permitted by the license constituted a violation of the license itself and not merely a violation of the conditions of the license. The court relied on clause 3(1) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, which prohibited the import of any goods specified in Schedule I of the Order except under and in accordance with a license. The court found that the spare parts for motor vehicles were included in Schedule I and that the petitioner had imported goods of a value exceeding the value permitted by the license. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner had violated the license itself.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
When two of the consignments ordered by Joao reached the port at Marmagoa and Joao sought clearance thereof, an objection was raised by the customs authorities that the value of the goods sought to be imported was above the balance value of the licence Consequently the goods were detained. Proceedings were initiated against Joao for the alleged violation of import licence in respect of its value limit. A show-cause notice dated 8-11-1966 was issued to him wherein it was alleged that he had been guilty of charges mentioned in clause (d) of Section 111 of the Customs Act of 1962 (hereinafter called the Act) read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Imports Act) Joao was also called upon to show cause why action should not be taken against him in terms of Section 112 of the Act.
Joao denied the charges by contending that he had not violated the import licence in any manner. However, the Collector of Customs
and Central Excise, the respondent No. 2 of the present petition, held by his order D/-17-12-1966 that as a result of devaluation the original value of the licence of Rs. 28,789.00 had been enhanced to Rs. 34,959.00, implying an overall increase of only Rs. 6170.00 and not an increase of more than Rs. 24000.00 claimed by Joao, and that as such it was established that Joao had imported goods in excess of the value permitted by the licence. As a result, the respondent No. 2 held further, the imports in dispute were unauthorised and the goods liable to confiscation under clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act read with Section 3(2) of the Imports Act. The goods were therefore confiscated though an option was given to Joao that he could redeem them on payment of a total fine of Rs. 53000.00. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 was imposed on Joao under Section 112 of the Act.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 17-12-1966 Joao filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The prayer made is for a writ of Certiorari against respondents Nos. 2 to 4 for quashing the order dated 17-12-1966, for a writ of Mandamus against the same respondents directing them to release the detained goods, and for a writ of Prohibition against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 restraining them from taking any action against Joao under the Act. The principal contentions raised in the writ are that the customs authorities are unjustified in the stand that the value of Rs. 34959-00 determined after the devaluation does not represent the enhanced value of the balance amount of Rs. 10732-00, and that the Imports (Control) Order of 1955, hereinafter called the Order, issued under Sec. 3 of the Imports Act, under which the customs-authorities have acted, had not been extended to the territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and as such the proceedings initiated against him have no legal basis.
3. The respondents traversed the allegations on which Joao had come to the Court. It was maintained that there was an overall increase of only Rs. 6170-00 in the original value of the licence a
