9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l value of Rs. 2,95,130/- mentioned therein in specific terms. Amongst other things the licences had this specific condition ... "This licence is issued subject to the further condition that even if an item is by general nomenclature or specially included in this licence it shall not be considered to be so included in this licence if the said item is known by any other name/trade name/or a synonym and is cannalised under that name on the date of issue of this licence." 3. The petitioners imported a consignment of 11.8 tonnes of the said MHP which arrived in Cochin on August 20, 1977. The petitioners presented their bill of entry for the CIF value of Rs. 2,92,868/- and requested the Collector of Customs at Cochin (respondent No. 3) to release the said consignment in terms of the aforesaid bill of entry. The third respondents pointed out that the said MHP imported by the petitioners was on test found to be silicon oil and the import thereof was restricted to the 10% of the face value of the said four licences. He accordingly contended that the face value of the said four licences came to Rs. 2,95,130/- and as such goods only worth Rs. 29,513/- were covered by the said four licences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut various contentions in the said application. The petitioners' revision application was also rejected on November 20, 1980. The petitioners thereafter filed the present petition on or about February 17, 1982. On the question of jurisdiction, the petitioners stated that the petitioners have their registered office in Bombay and their licences were issued to them in Bombay and the respondents have their administrative offices in Bombay and, therefore, they stated that a part of the cause of action has arisen in Bombay and that is how this petition should be entertained in this Court. 7. As far as the respondents were concerned, there is no affidavit-in-reply. The only contention the respondents raised was one of territorial jurisdiction. I will deal with this question last. 8. On the charge of mis-description under Section 111 Km) the order in revision holds that the goods had been correctly described in the bill of entry by their chemical name and that, therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to be guilty of that offence under Section 111(m). 9. Therefore, the only limited question is as to whether it could be said that the import was without any valid licence. For the purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t amount to prohibition of import of the goods, see the Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, Madras v. Amin Chand Mutha. The Central Government could prohibit the import of camphor only' by an order under Section 3, published in the official gazette. The Assistant Collector of Customs and the High Court held that the import of camphor BP was not authorised by the licence largely on the ground that the import of camphor was totally banned during the relevant licensing period. As a matter of fact, the Division Bench of the High Court said that the appellant would have been entitled to import camphor BP under the licence "if there was no specific ban on camphor as such in the schedule itself." But we find that there was no ban on the import of camphor and consequently much of the reasoning of the High Court falls to the ground." 11. There is yet another case of our High Court reported in 1981 E.L.T. 235 (Lokesh Chemical Works v. M.S. Mehta, Collector of Customs (Preventive) Bombay and others). The learned Judge has categorically stated herein that once the licence is issued no authority can prevent import of items mentioned in the licence except by cancellation thereof under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with question as to whether it could hie said that this Court has jurisdiction, the learned Judges have taken into account the fact that the petitioner was a resident of a place situated in the District of Maharashtra State and that the impugned order itself shows that the case was heard in Bombay. The Court has further held that there can hardly be any doubt that the effect of this order fell on the petitioner at Ullhasnagar where he resides. Again, it has been stated that it is not in dispute that the proceedings in consequence of the order would be held by the officers located within the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, I am doubtful whether this authority can be of any help to Mr. Ranga as such. 15. However, I think that his contention falls squarely within the ratio of the case of Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1981 E.L.T. 440 (Raj.). This is a Case of Rajasthan High Court and is in relation to Customs and countervailing duty. After referring to the amendment of Article 226 of the, Constitution of India and after referring to a number of judgments including the judgments cited by Mr. Sethna, the Rajasthan High Court took the view that even though all actions had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired by the petitioners, rejected the prayer for its release and recommended that the entire land be acquired by the State Government. Thereafter the State Government issued a impugned notification under Section 52(1) of the said local Act arid thereby the land vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Thereafter a notice under Section 52(2) of the said local Act regarding acquisition of that land was served on the petitioners, the petitioners filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court and they pleaded that the part of the cause of action arose in Calcutta inasmuch they received a notice under Section 52(2) of the said Act and that they had their registered office within the territory of the State of West Bengal. The Supreme Court in terms held that the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the said writ petition inasmuch no material part of the cause of action had ever arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. In relation to the notice under Section 52(2) of the said local Act which was Served at the petitioners' registered office at Calcutta, the Supreme Court observed that that would not give rise to the cause of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
