Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1991 (1) TMI 156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d 25th November, 1975, passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, (Annexure P-9) were quashed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that the firm of the writ petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of woollen/terrywool textiles, which are sold within the country and are exported to various countries in the Middle East. Under the import and export policy of the Government of India, the Small S.C.ale 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. The writ petitioner was granted import entitlement to the tune of Rs. 45 lakhs. In exercise of powers conferred on it by the Imports and Exports (C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 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 under Section 112 of the Act. The writ petitioner submitted that it stuck to the statement made by Shri Mahajan on 24th January, 1973, and the same should be treated as its reply to the show cause notice. On 27th February, 1973, another communication was addressed to the petitioner alleging that the second-hand clothing recovered by the officials of the Customs Department could not have been legally imported into India. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector Customs, Amritsar, confiscated the goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, vide order dated 23rd November, 1973 (Annexure P-5). It has been ment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ting woollen rags through the State Trading Corporation. There was no time-limit for using those rags for the manufacture of shoddy yarn and textiles. It is not the case of the department that the material found at the premises was over and above the total material which had been legally imported by the petitioner or in other words the material was smuggled. The material had been imported through the State Trading Corporation and had been cleared by the Customs Department. After all, what is a "rag", will depend upon the feeling of an individual or a society. What an individual in a foreign country or a society in a foreign country may consider a clothe as a rag, may be considered by an individual in India or a society in India to be a seco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e serviceable, some of which may be unserviceable, some of which may contain large percentage of wool or no percentage of wool but known in the trade as 'woollen rags' which would have to be taken into consideration. …………………………………………………………………………………………. Therefore, the question is, whether what has been imported by the petitioners under the Import Licence granted to the S.T.C. is 'woollen rags'. This is independent of consideration of items mentioned in the Customs Act, 1962 because, insofar as the Customs Act, 1962, is concerned, the Government is concerned 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 pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nsidering that merely because the goods were not in a mutilated condition, which was not a condition precedent to the importation of the goods, it would in any way affect the validity of the import of this consignment by the petitioners. In my opinion, therefore, the 1st Respondent was in error in holding that the imported goods were not covered by the licence for 'woollen rags' and the impugned order dated 22nd June, 1973 is liable to be quashed and set aside." 5. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Bombay High Court. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is not the Court to go into the matter whether the confiscated goods were rags or not and this being a finding of fact should not have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates