2009 (7) TMI 603 - HC - Customs

EXIM- Petitioner submits that the order is signed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India and not by all the members of the Committee and on this count itself the order is liable to be set aside. Held that- The mere fact that the order annexed by the petitioners to the petition shows one signature would not mean that the decision was not taken by the Committee. In the absence of any other material, it is not possible to hold that the decision was not taken by the Committee. Consequently, that contention is rejected. use of raw material for the purpose of import. Both the authorities below, after considering evidence arrived at concurrent finding of fact that petitioner did not use the raw material for the purpose it was imported. Finding recorded a pure finding of fact. Order not disclosing any infirmity on face of record. No interfere called for.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Additional Controller of Imports and Exports and the Appellate Committee.
2. Allegation that the decision was not taken by all members of the Committee.
3. Misuse of imported raw material by the petitioners.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the orders dated 27th June, 1986, and 11th August 1988, passed by the Additional Controller of Imports and Exports and the Appellate Committee, respectively. The petitioners contended that the order was signed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India and not by all members of the Committee, seeking to set it aside.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the decision was not taken by all members of the Committee as the order was signed by only one individual. However, upon examination, it was found that the decision was indeed made by the Committee as per the order of the Appellate Committee, which clearly stated that the matter was heard by the Committee and a decision was reached based on the facts presented.

3. Another contention raised by the petitioners was regarding the use of imported raw material to make industrial strainers. Both the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority found that the petitioners were merely cutting the sheets and selling them to third parties, not utilizing the raw material for its intended purpose. The Authorities considered additional evidence and arrived at a concurrent finding that the raw material was misutilized, which was upheld as a finding of fact. The order did not show any irregularity or flaw on the record.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that no interference was warranted based on the findings of fact by the Authorities. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs, affirming the decision on the validity of the orders and the misuse of imported raw material by the petitioners.