9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods comprising of spare parts of agricultural tractors, namely piston rings and gears totally valued at Rs. 20,357/-. They produced the Licence No. 1690126, dated 5-4-1971. The goods, on arrival were bonded. The date of import in this case is 20-5-1972. During the period when the goods were in bond and the clearance were sought for, proceedings were initiated by the Licensing Authority against the licence holder and the licence was cancelled by their I.T.C. order dated 11-7-1972. The said order was issued under Clause 9(c) of the Import (Control) Order. Again another order was issued on 17-11-1972 cancelling the same licence, under Clause 9(a) of the Import (Control) Order on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and mis-representation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect. In this connection, he cited the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Bansilal Jessasingh v. Union of India Ors in Writ Petition No. 538 of 1981 dated 4-4-1985 reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 52 (Bom.). He also cited the appellate decision of the Collector (Appeals) in regard to the very same licence passed by another Collector, wherein he has allowed the appeal and ordered release of the goods. On the basis of the said order of the Collector (Appeals) they also got release of another consignment. In this context, he produced a photo-copy of the Triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry dated 9-2-1981. 4. Shri Deshpande s attention was invited to the Letter of Authority under which only they have come into picture. According to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he circumstances, any view taken to the release of the goods to the appellants would be in clear violation of the conditions of the Letter of Authority, especially when the appellants have not taken any steps to get the requisite permission from the Licensing Authority for disposal of the goods otherwise. However, he conceded that this specific aspect has not been considered by the authorities below. He argued that should not justify the release of the goods to the appellants especially when the terms and conditions of the Letter of Authority are quite clear and there is no modification noticed in the form of addendum or corrigendum. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on both sides. The first and primary consideration, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the customs documents have to clearly indicate that the goods have been imported by the licence holder, though the Bill of Entry may be filed by the Letter of Authority holder. Hence, if the goods are to be released to the Letter of Authority holder, that would be a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the Letter of Authority. The appellants have come into the picture, admittedly by virtue of the Letter of Authorityand not otherwise. Shri Mondal, in his arguments, also cited the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ors. reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. page 753 (Del.), wherein one of the points discussed by the Delhi High Court is with regard to the locus standi of the agent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
