1973 (6) TMI 27 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of goods for re-export as ship stores.
2. Confiscation of goods by Customs authorities.
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions under Customs Act, 1962.
4. Applicability of licensing requirements for imported goods.
5. Decision of the appeal Court on the matter.

Analysis:

The petitioners, a business entity engaged in shipchandling and canteen supplies, imported a consignment of sunglasses in October 1970 for re-export as ship stores or otherwise. They made declarations on the Bill of Entry stating the goods were imported for re-export outside India under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, Customs authorities confiscated the goods on the grounds that sunglasses could not be considered genuine ship stores. The petitioners challenged this confiscation through a writ petition, leading to a legal dispute.

During the proceedings before the Assistant Collector of Customs, reference was made to a previous judgment by Justice Kania, where tape-recorders were considered ship stores. Despite this, the Customs Authorities were dissatisfied with Justice Kania's decision and appealed against it. The appeal Court, comprising Chief Justice Kantawalla and Justice Tulzapurkar, delivered a broader judgment, emphasizing that goods imported and bonded for re-export outside India, even if not traditional ship stores, are exempt from licensing requirements. The Court's interpretation focused on the comprehensive nature of the term "or otherwise" in the relevant provisions.

The appeal Court's decision held that as long as the imported goods were meant for re-export outside India, regardless of their specific nature as ship stores, the petitioners were not required to obtain a license or customs clearance permit under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. Therefore, the confiscation order by Customs Authorities was deemed invalid, and the petition was allowed. The Court directed the respondents to process the petitioners' application for bonding the goods under the Customs Act, issue necessary documents, and bear the costs of the petitioners. The original order of confiscation was set aside, and the petitioners were vindicated based on the broader interpretation of the relevant provisions by the appeal Court.