9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing soaps at several plants all over the country since last 40 years. Tallow is a basic requirement for manufacturing soaps and as such the soap industry in India has been using imported tallow for the manufacture of soaps ever since 1948. Prior to June 5, 1981, the import of mutton tallow was canalised, while all other tallows, such as animal tallow free from mutton tallow could be imported under the open general licence. On June 5, 1981, a public notice was issued whereby Appendix 8 to the Import Policy was amended and instead of existing item 44 which was restricted to mutton tallows, the item substit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts (Control) Order, 1955 for proposed action under clause 8 of the said Order. It would suffice if reference is made to notice, dated January 25, 1984, copy of which is annexed as Ex. D to the petition. The notices were addressed to M/s. T.B.R. Exports, M/s. Impex International Corporation and to the petitioners. In paragraphs 1 to 4, allegations are made against M/s. T.B.R. Exports and M/s. Impex International Corporation for contravening the provisions of the Imports (Control) Order. Paragraph 5 of this notice recites that prima facie beef tallow has been imported unauthorisedly and illegally in contravention of provisions of clause 3 read with clause 8 of the Imports (Control) Order. Paragraph 6, for the first time, refers to the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners, nor did they file any bills of entry in respect of clearance of tallow. The petitioners agreed to purchase beef tallow on high seas basis only with a view to avoid payment of sales tax. The learned counsel urged that the petitioners being actual users were entitled to purchase imported tallow and by that action, it is impossible to suggest that the petitioners have abetted the licence-holder in contravening the terms of the licence. In my judgment, the submission of the learned counsel is correct. The petitioners were, in no way, concerned with the import of tallow and it is not in dispute that till the time of the clearance of the beef tallow, the petitioners have no control or title to the imported item. Once the item was cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the customs authorities can be dubbed as an abettor with the licence-holder for contravening the provisions of the licence. If the petitioners are to be abettors, then the customs authorities which cleared the goods should also be branded as abettors: In my judgment, the claim of the respondents that the petitioners abetted the contravention of the provisions of the licence is entirely unsustainable. 6. Shri Bulchandani submitted that respondent no. 2 has issued show cause notices calling upon the petitioners why action should not be taken and at this juncture, this court should not entertain the petition and quash the show cause notices but leave the determination to respondent no. 2. The submission cannot be accepted because the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
