9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a purchase order dated 22.12.1984 from the 3rd respondent Adi Impex, Kutch, India through the 2nd petitioner for 100 Nos. Pfaff "Class: 463/01 BS High Speed flat bed lock-stitch industrial sewing machines complete with stand, table, treadle, motor and essential spare parts". During the relevant period under the Import Policy for the period 1984-85 these machines could be imported into India under Open General Licence by actual users. Thereafter respondent No. 3 opened a letter of credit in favour of the 1st petitioner dated 3.1.1985. 3. Under the letter of credit the shipment was to be effected not later than 28th February 1985. Letter of credit was valid for negotiation till 15th March, 1985. 4. Pursuant to the purchase order the 1st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs by his order dated 27.12.1985 confiscated the goods on the ground that the import was without any import licence. He, however, permitted re-shipment of the goods on fine of Rs. 1,00,000 subject to the following conditions : (1) That fine shall be paid in foreign exchange; (2) That the shipment is allowed to the port of loading namely Paranague; (3) That the shipment will be through an Indian Flag ship. Before the Additional Collector of Customs, respondent No. 4, who had filed the Bill of Entry only for the purpose of reexporting the goods, alone had appeared. The order of the Additional Collector of Customs refers to them as the Agent of Importers. The petitioners, who were aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. The Additional Collector of Customs has made a bold statement that the goods have been imported in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 read with clause 3 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. It is not clear from this statement what provisions of law have been violated. 8. Under Section 111, sub-section (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation if they are imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force. There is no material before me to show that the provisions of this section are attracted in the present case. 9. The order of the Additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They are directly affected by the impugned order and they must be considered in these circumstances as the party aggrieved. 12. The phrase "personally aggrieved" was considered in the context of the Advocates Act, 1961 by the Supreme Court in the case of Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar reported in A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2092. The Supreme Court said that a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. Again a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him. The petitioners satisfy both these tests. The order of the Tribunal also, therefore, is bad in law. 13. It is submitted by Mr. Bulchandani for respondents Nos. 1 and 5 that the matter should now be referred back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
