1962 (1) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ence when they arrived at the Madras Port. The Collector of Customs by the impugned orders found that the letter of authority produced by the petitioner was a bogus one and proceeded to state: "Investigation has also revealed that there is no firm at present by the name of Messrs Globe Engineering and Trading Co., New Delhi, and that no such letter of Authority has been issued by the Chief Controller of Imports against the Licence in question. As the licence is not in the name of the importer, the authority to import the goods can only be under a valid letter of Authority. The letter of Authority can only be considered as having been made in contravention of the Import Trade Control regulations." Reference was also made in the orders t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f value and commission with expenses and that the licensee would provide the petitioner with a letter of authority in its favour. The rest of the terms of the understanding are not quite material. It is on such an understanding, says the petitioner, that the goods were imported under licence. The petitioner also brought it to the notice of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports that upto April 1959 the licensee had not fulfilled its promise to send a sum of Rs. 12,000/- in spite of demands and that it found itself entangled with the Shippers by having guaranteed payment of the drafts in the event of the drawee failing to honour the same. It is in the context of these circumstances the petitioner happened to come into the picture. Most .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot be said that the petitioner imported the good on his own account and under the letter of authority. To say so will clearly be opposed to the actual facts and circumstances. The imports were under the licence and not the letter of authority. 4.It is, however, contended on behalf of the respondent that the imports were under the letter of authority and by the petitioner and that the consignee of the goods should also be regarded as the petitioner because it was on account of the petitioner that the goods were imported. It suffices to say that this contention has no basis on the facts. The imports, as I said, were under the licence and all the documents relating to the imports were in the name of the licensee. The fact that the authorisat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X