9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Since the clearance was refused by the Directorate of Industries, Himachal Pradesh the petitioner again wrote to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports Exports that permission to process the goods outside the factory premises be granted. In the meanwhile the goods were cleared from Customs by M/s. Favre Leuba Co. Ltd., Bombay. Since the petitioner had obtained actual users licence for manufacture of clocks and time-pieces at Mandi, Himachal Pradesh he had to utilise the goods in his own factory. The Joint Chief Controller of Imports Exports on inquiries being made by the Directorate of Industries found that the petitioner not having installed any machinery in his factory was not in a position to start production within feasible period of time and thus issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 24th June, 1968 under Clause 10-C of the Imports (Control) Order 1955. A similar show cause notice was sent by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports Exports to M/s. Favre Leuba Co. Ltd., Bombay because these imported goods were lying with M/s. Favre Leuba Co. Ltd., at Bombay. M/s. Favre Leuba Co. Ltd, Bombay vide their letter dated 19th July, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears period during which the bar was to operate had expired, the only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was regarding the requirement of notice to the petitioner before passing an order under Clause 10-C of the Imports (Control), Order, 1955. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was not given any notice under Clause 10-C of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 and the petitioner learnt about the order dated 10th Dec., 1968 passed by the respondent only when the respondent filed the counter-affidavit to the petition. It was submitted that under Clause 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 whenever the Chief Controller of Imports Exports decides to sell the goods to any other person he has first to be satisfied after giving a reasonable opportunity to the licencee of being heard in the matter, that the goods cannot be utilised for the purpose for which they were imported. It was submitted that if the petitioner had been given the opportunity of hearing he would have satisfied the Chief Controller of Imports Exports that the petitioner was in a position to utilise the goods in his own factory. It was further contended that an order passed under Clause 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Tarna Watch Co. and the value of the goods including the customs duty, demurrage, clearing charges etc. was Rs. 83,036.89. M/s. Favre Leuba Co. Ltd., Bombay further communicated that these goods could be utilised by M/s. Sifco Limited, Hyderabad in their factory at Hyderabad. Taking into account the representation made by M/s. Favre Leuba Co. Ltd. and the representation made by two persons who had called on the office of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports Exports and other apparent circumstances the respondent was satisfied that the licencee was not in a position to utilise the imported goods in his own factory and having thus satisfied directed M/s. Favre Leuba Co. Ltd., Bombay to sell the goods to M/s. Sifco Limited, Hyderabad for Rs. 83,036.89 within one month from the date of issue of the order. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was fully aware of the notice and in fact had come to the office of the respondent with a request that permission to process the goods outside be given. It was further contended that the petitioner never communicated their change of address to the respondent. It was further submitted that the questions and answers in Parliame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory. This was after the notice under Clause 10-C was issued. A doubt was, therefore, raised whether this Shri S.P. Dhir and the petitioner were the same person. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the petitioner had been misrepresenting by changing his name whereas he appeared before the respondent as Shri S.P. Dhir, the petition is filed by him as Shri S.P. Verma. The petitioner admitted that he had changed his name from Verma to Dhir on the advice of a numerologist in the year 1973. He however submitted that whenever his signatures were required in connection with the instant case he always signed in the name of S.P. Verma. It appears that petitioner has sometimes been representing himself to be S.P. Dhir and sometimes as S.P. Verma. In the affidavit filed in the Court on 20th September, 1985 he has stated that he changed his name in the year 1973. But from the record it appears that as early as in 1969 he had represented himself to be S.P. Dhir. This is evident from the notice dated 25th September, 1969 under Clause 10 for action under Clause 8 of Imports (Control) Order, 1955 which was addressed to M/s. Tarna Watch Co. C/o. Shri Satpal Dhir and also order dated 27t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
