9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P-9). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case that the petitioner is a partnership concern and is engaged in the manufacture of woollen/terriwool textiles, which are sold within the country and are exported to various countries in the Middle East. From 1970 to 1976 the petitioner earned foreign exchange to the tune of about Rs. 83 lakhs by exporting goods manufactured by it. Under the import and export policy of the Government of India, the Small Scale Industries are entitled to import foreign goods to the extent of 70% of the F.O.B. value of the goods exported by them as determined by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports. On that premises the petitioner was granted import entitlement to the tune of Rs. 45 lakhs. In exercise of the powe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 24th January, 1973, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 6th February, 1973, calling upon it to show cause why 10 bags containing woollen garments of foreign origin be not confiscated under Section 111 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penal action be not taken against it under Section 112, ibid. The petitioner submitted that it stuck to the statement made by Shri Mahajan on 24th January, 1973. This should be treated as its reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner received a communication dated 27th February, 1973, in which an additional allegation was made to the effect that the second-hand clothing recovered by the officials of the Customs could not have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y cannot be confiscated. A similar case arose in the Bombay High Court. Delivering judgment in the case (Misc. Petition No. 92 of 1974) M/s. Nagesh Hosiery Mills v. M.R. Ramchandran and another decided on 15th January, 1975, Mr. Justice R.P. Bhatt observed as under :- 'This, to my mind, is besides the point, because an item cannot be classified on the basis of what will be done to the goods so imported, either before its importation, or after its importation. What has to be seen is the construction put upon the item by the persons in the trade and if "woollen rags" found in a serviceable condition comply with the attribute as known in the trade then it must be treated as "woollen rags". No further elucidation was made on behalf of the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned with the question of what is the duty payable upon such items. In the present case, the entire basis of the order dated 22nd June, 1973, is that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Rule 3 of this order and has imported, what is termed "Second-hand clothing in the garb of woollen rags". Having considered the question, I am of the opinion in the present case that it cannot be said that what the petitioners have imported is "second hand clothing", as the true scope of the item "woollen rags" has not been properly considered by the 1st Respondent. The expression "second-hand clothing" has a different connotation altogether. That article which has once been used and is yet in a new condition can be treated as "second-hand" if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
