9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Certain irregularities were noticed by the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports in the import made by M/s. L.D. Textiles Industries Limited. A show cause notice was issued. In his order dated 14-11-1986 the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports imposed a penalty on M/s. L.D. Textiles Industries Limited. He also debarred the Company and their Directors from making imports, from receiving import licences/CCPs, receiving any imported material from canalising agencies and also importing materials under OGL. This debarment was to remain in existence for 15 licensing periods up to the year 2000. The power under which this punishment was meted out was under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. It appears that an appeal filed against this order was dismissed. We are told by the counsel that a Writ petition No. 680/1992 is pending against the dismissal in the Delhi High Court. 4. Thereafter the Directors of M/s. L.D. Textiles Industries created another company namely M/s. Obron Impex Private Limited. M/s. Obron Impex Private Limited purchased certain licences and imported goods thereunder. Certain goods which were freely importable were also imported by them. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms of this provision. 8. Shri Sridharan on the other hand submits that the mistake pointed to by the applicants is not extraneous to the record but that pertains to the provisions of law under which the order was passed by the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, and that the order and the enactment under which it was made was noticed by the Tribunal and it thus formed part of the order. 9. To settle this controversy we shall first examine the mistake pointed out. 10. The mistake is claimed to occur in the implementation of the order of the Additional Chief Controller of Imports Exports. Shri Sridharan states that this order of the Additional Chief Controller of Imports Exports was made in terms of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. It is his submission that this order ceased to exist in 1993 and thereby the order could not cover the imports made in 1997. He submits that the coverage of the debarment order ceased on the date of repeal of the order. He has an alternative plea. He submits that Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers confiscation of the goods prohibited under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and under any other law for the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the prohibitions, etc., would not apply to any imports made after 1993. The present imports made in 1997 are not adversely affected by this order. 14. We are unable to read this order in this light. Under the law as it existed, the authority empowered thereunder was competent to prescribe a period for the duration of which the prohibitions imposing a ban could be imposed and continued. The mere cessation of the order would not take away the effect of this order. The enactment which repealed the authority itself give this protection. Section 20 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 which repealed Imports Exports (Control) Act, 1947 by virtue of Section 20 thereof contained a saving clause safeguarding any proceedings undertaken in terms of the repealed Act. It is significant that the order under which the penalty was imposed on the present applicants by the Additional Chief Controller of Imports Exports was issued under the powers conferred by the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. We therefore do not accept the claim that the effect of this order should not last up to year 2000 and that it should cease in 1993. 15. We have also taken note of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 254(2) of the Act. On perusal of these judgments we find that these judgments refer to Section 35 of the earlier Act, which provisions were similar to Section 254 of the present Income-tax Act. In the first cited case the Income-tax Officer had exercised his authority under the provisions and has rectified the mistake. The reason for the rectification was that he had earlier failed to take into account certain amendments made to the relevant enactment. An Income-tax Officer deals with a certain set of provisions and his failure to be aware of any or all of the relevant provisions would render any order made by him liable for rectification for which rectification he has authority under the old Section 35 or under the new Section 154. We find that in several citations made by the learned Counsel relating to the income-tax, the rectification of the mistake had been made by an officer subordinate and disputes arising out of such rectification were carried out up to the Supreme Court. In the Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT case also the subject matter related to determination of chargeable profits. The Tribunal in rendering their decision did not take into account a particular pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
