| Headnote |
A B c D E F G H 507 DY. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF JMPORTS & EXPORTS, NEW DELHI v. K. T. KOSALRAM & ORS. [V. BHARGAVA AND I. D. DuA, JJ.] September 29, 1970 Imports and ExportsAct (18 of 1947), Import Control Order, 1955 and Import Trade Control Policy-Condition in licencefor import of goods-Interpretation of-Import of Printing Presses-Condition in licenceagainst sale of printing material-If applicable to printingpresses. Under s. 3 ofthe IU1ports andExportsAct, 1947,the CentralGov ernment is empoweredto provideby Order publishedin the Official Gazettefor prohibiting,restricting or otherwisecontrollingthe import, export,carriageor shipmentetc., of goodsof anyspecifieddescription. TheCentralGovernmentmade .the Import ControlOrder, 1955. Under cl. 3 ofthisOrder.the importof .anygoodsof the descriptionspecified in Sch. IoftheOrder is restrictedexcept under and in accordancewith alicenceor a customsclearancepermit grantedby theCentralGovem ment.Item 67(1)in Sch. I Part V, containsprinting and lithographic materialand a largenumberof variouscomponentsof a printing.press • . In PartV of theSchedule,known as ITC Scheduleof theImport TradeControlHandbook,relevant for the year 1960, published by the Governmentof India(Ministryof Commerceand Industry)printing and lithographicmaterial are enteredat serialno. 67 (I). The ITC Hand book, which is published.to give informationof rulesand procedure for the assistanceof thoseinterested in imports,emphasisesthe importance of correct classificationwith referenceto .the serial number and partl of the ITCSchedule. TheGovernmentof India,Ministryof Commerceand Industry also publishesfrom time to time its ImportTrade Control Policy. In the publication, relevant for theperiodApril-September 1960, the policy statementshows the list of items licensableto actual users, and item 67(1 )(i) dealing with printingmachinery(for Newspaper Establish- mentsand qualityprinters), is shown· in App. iv, Part V. · Therespondents-who were the Director-in-Charge and otherofficers of a companypublishinga Tamildaily newspaper-and othersapplied in Form B prescribedin Appendix Ill oftheITCHandbook,for a licence forimporting ·a printingpress. . This form is meantfor the importof goods by actual users, whenthe licence is soughtfor importof goods otherthan thosefallingunder the capitalgoods licensingprocedure.The respol!dentsstated that the raw material was requiredby themfor print ing theirnewspaper.The ITCnumberand partwerespecificallystated to be No. 67(l)(i), Part V. Anamendment of the licence·was sought by therespondentsfor importSory ina factory,and thata completeprinting press is neither raw materialnor accessoriesand thatit cannot be · said that by ~ing aprintingpress for runningit thepress is utilisedfor consump tion as raw materialor accessory; Thetrial courtconvictedsome of theaccused, The HighCourt ac quittedthem on appeal,and dismissedthe petitionfor enhancewent of sentence filed by ·the PublicProsecutor.The PublicProsecutor applied underArt. 134(1)(c) of theConstitutionfor leaveto appoal to this Court but.thatapplication was dismissedby theHighCourt. Special leaveto appeal und.r Art.136 was appliedfor by the appellantand was granted. On the questions:(1) Whetherspecial leave to appealcould be granted to theappellant when be di.ct not moyethe HighCourt;and (2) whether therespondentswere guilty of the offences ch~rged, A B c D HELD: (I) There is no prnvision of lawwhichuisentitles the • flppellant, who was theoriginalcomplaint,from applyingfor special leavein thisCourt. merely. because the· PublicProsecutor had ·appliedE intheHighCourtfor enhancedpunishmentand for leave to appeal to this Court,under Art. 134(l)(c). Artie.le 136 and .the Supreme CourtRules are also wide eno·ugh to._ empowerthis. Court tO ·grant special ]eave to ·the appellant in cases like the present [515 A-CJ Manage1nent of· Hindustan Co1n1nercial .Bank Ltd.Kanpur v. Bhagtt'an .dass, [1965]2 S.C.R.265, referred to;· (2) {a) ·Thewordsused in the licencehave to be construed in the F backgroundof theschemeof theImportControl Order, 1955, entry • No. 67 of Schedule.I .to that Order ·and the ImportTrade Control Policy: What particularmeaning should be aitached to words :and phrasesin a I giveninstrumentis ·usually. to be gath~red ·from the context.the nature ··of the subjectmatter, th~ purposeor. theintentionof the author, andthe effect of .giving to .thoni one or theother of the permissiblemeanings, on G ·the objectto be achieved. [515 F-Hl- . There is no itemin any of the listsreferred to in theImportControl Order, 1955, or. the. relevantITC Handbookor therelevantpublication rcgardin~ Import Trade Control Policy which coversprintingpresses as a separateitem. Printing presses ale thustreatedby legislative intend ment as' prinling material orprinting machinery, and the respondents alsoproceededon thatfooting.This is shown by their use of Form H B, and by the reference in theirapplicationto serialNo. 67(1)(i). They alsoknewthe disabilityimposed on them by cl. ( c)of theconditions in the licence· issuedto them .. Thewords'utilised','consumption' and A B c D E DY. CHIEF COi'T. IMP. & EXI'. v. K. T. KOSAL RAM (Dua, J.) 509 rawmaterial',in tlw conditionshave to be filled into the clearly discernible statutoryscheme and this is possible withotJt joing violence to the dic· tionarymeaningof thewords.The word "consumption"' conveysthe ideaof usingup thegoods by fixing hem in thefactoryalong with the othercomponents,and the variousarticles mentionedin Item67(1)(i) havebeenintendedconstitute'taw material.' [518 A-B; 519 E-F] (b) Further,the respondentssought as. actual· ttms the original licence and theamendedlicence on thegroundthat the imported goods were required to meetthe increasingdemand of circulationof :heir news paper.Had they not compliedwith the proceduremeant for the import ofgoods by actualusers they mightnot havesecuredthe licence.· Having secureda licenceexpresslyfor the importof goodsfor their use· they cannot be permittedto ignorethe conditionof actualuser on theplea that cl. (c)of theconditions is inapplicable to them.[519 F·HI Therefore, all the respondents-theindividual accused and the com· pany-were guilty of theoffencescharged. ,[520 F] State of West Bengal v. MotilalKanoria, [1966] 3 S.C.R.933, followed. (3)Breachof conditionsfor importof goods is a seriousmatter becauseit prejudiciallyaffects the -country's nationaleconomy.The view of the High Court is not sustainableon thestatutorylanguageand ontheImportControl Policy of whichthe respondentswere fully aware, anJ hence, this Court is justified in con.verting the acquit.ta! into convic· lion.underArt. 136 of the Constitution. [520 G-H] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal No. 178of1967. · Appeal by special leave from the judgment 3Jnd orderdated January5, 1967of the ·Madras High ·court in CriminalAppeal Nos.34 to 38of 1965. R. N.Sachthey, fortheappellant. F H. R. Gokhale,M. K. Ramamurthi,Vineet Kumar and H Shyama/aPappu, for respondent No: L A. V. Rangam, for resp;:mdentNo. 6. TheJudgmenrof theCourtwas delivered by Dua, J. A complaintunder s. 6 oftheImportsand Exports · ControlAct, 1947dated24th Fe)Jruary, 196.4 was presented bytheChiefControllerof Importsand Exports,.New. Delhiin thecourt of the ChiefPresidencyMagistrate,Madras against ( I ) K. T.Kosalram, Direcports, on therecommendation A B c .D E of the Committeeconstituted for thepurpose,issued in thefirst instancean importlicencefor Rs. 1,50,000 (Ex. P-12). The. F number of this licence was A-759626/60/AU/CCI/HQand it wasdatedSeptember19, 1960. Later, on therequestof accused no. 2 on behJ!for the Company,the valueof this licence was raisedto Rs. 3 lakhs on therecommendationof thePressRegistrar of India.The licence was returnedto theCompany ~ December 16, 1960. Theoriginalperiod of validity of the lice)ce having expiredon June 19, 1961accused no. 2 requestedthe Licensing Authority on behalf of theCompanyto extendthe periodon the groundthat the machinery could notbe fixed up by theCompany's Directors. Under theordersof theControllerin chargeof the newsprintsale, the validity of the licence was extendedupto March19. 1962. Oil July 2, 1961 accusedno. 1 sought per missionof the Liceinsing Authorityon beha!.f of the Companyto import two secondhand.rotary pressesinstead of onealready i;>ernlitted withinthe licencevalue of Rs.3 lakhsunderthe import G H A B c D E F G H DY. CHIEF CONT. IMP. & EXP. v. K. T. KOSAL RAM (Dua, /.) 511 licence Ex. P/12 on the groundthat one mo~e printingpress was required fortheproposed office at Madurai(Ex. P/15). After securingfurther necessaryinformationabout the machinerypro posedto beimportedthe ChiefControllerapproved the request withthe resultthat the amendedlicence for twopresses iwas sent totheCompany, on August16, 1961. On December19, 1961 theCompany as per letter sentby accusedno. 1, informedthe Chief Coniroller that one rotaryprintingpress had beenimported andthe otherwas expectedto arriveby January,1962. It was requestedthat in the importlicencethe descriptionof thegoods bechangedfrom "Rotary Press" to "RotaryPress with Stereo equipmentand Turtles". We find fromEx. P/17 and Ex. PI l 7 (a)thatit was representedthat the Company was incurring heavydemurrage as the caseswere lyingon thewharfuncleared for wa~t oftherequiredamendmentof thelicence.This was described as a purelytechhnicalamendmentin thelicence.This request was grantedwith th~ approvalof theChiefControllerof Importsand Exports.The amendedlicence was despatched to the Companyon January3, 1962.Accordingto condition (c) reproducedon -the reverse of theimportlicencethe licence-holder had to utilisethe goodsimportedonly fo.r consumptionin his own factoryand its sale to or use by otherparties was specificallypro hibited.The licence-holder was furtherprohibitedfrom pledging the importedgoods in whole or in part excepiwith a scheduled bankduly authorisedto deal in foreignexchangeand thatalso withpriorpermissionof theLicensingAuthority. One ,Dr. K. G. Thomasowned "Kerala Dhwani", a daily newspaperof Kottayamhaving circulation in the Stateof Kerala. It hasstartedon August 20, 1959and C. J. Mani was its general businessmanagerever sinceits inception. On November 10, 1960 Dr.Thomasapplied to theChiefControllerof Importsand Exportson behalfof his firm for importinga rotaryprintingpress undera CustomsClearancePermit. But this was rejected. On October 25. 1961he sentanotherapplicationdated October 3, 1961on behalfof the firm requestingfor an importlicencefor importinga secondhandrotary press fortheperiod October March.1962. But this was alsorejected. Still another applica tion datedMay I 0, 1962for licencefor importingtwo monotype facingunits was also rejectedon April29, 1963. C. J. Mani,the GeneralManagerof thisconcern was alsoindependentlytrying tosecurea rotaryprintingpress throughvarious parties and firms. Ac;;mcd no. 5 was knownto C. J. Mani and duringthe former's visit to Kottayam in thefirstquarterof 1961 he learntthat Dr. Thomas was ..desirous ofsecuringa secondhandrolary printing press.Sometime in April or May, 1961 accused nos. 2 and 5 visitedKottayamand on meetingDr. Thomasthey told himthat acc•1sed no. I was going to havean importlicencefor tworotary 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 2 S.C.R. printingpresses but he needed only one,withthe resultthat one R.Hoe & Co . eight-pagerotary printing.press wouldbe available forsale.After some correspondenceand discussionbetween accusedno. 5 ar.dC. J. Mani andDr. Thomasand aftera per sonalmeetingbetweenDr. Thomasand accusedno. 1 (at the ins tanceof accusedno. 5) the termsof sale of rotarypress to Dr. Thomas were finallysettled on July 17, 1961. The pricewas settled at Rs.2 lakhsex-godown,Madras, The same day Dr. Thomaspaid to accusedno. ) Rs. 15,000 by means of a cheque byway of advancemoney. Accusedno. 5 issueda stamped receipt which· wasalsosigned hy accu,cd no. I. 0'.1 July19, 1961the photoprints of thepressofferedfor salewereforwarded by accusedno. 5 toDr.Thomas. On the reverseof theseprints werethe rubberstamp impressionsof the Company.On August 2, 1961 afurthersum of Rs. 25,000 waspaidby Dr.Thomas forwhicha receiptwas givenby accusednos. I and 5. Between September23, 196 l andMarch17, 1962the balanceof Rs. 1,76,700 (totalbeing Rs. 2,16,700) was paid by Dr. Thomas ininstalmentstowards the priceof therotarypress and its acces sories, On September I, 1961accusedNo. I had openeda letter of creditwith a nilmarginwith the In~ian OverseasBank Ltd.,Madras on MessrsUniversal Printing Equipment Company, New Yorkfor importinga secondhandrotary press for dollars equivalentto Rs. 1,00.112 against import licence no. A-759626/ 60/ AU/CCI/HQ. On October28, J 961. the Bankreceivedthe relevanfimport documentsand on December13, 1961it received fromthe Company the remittanceof theamount in cashtowards theletterof credit. On October 20, 1961MessrsBinny & Co., Madras,the agentsof theShipping Company MessrsIsthmian LinesInc., U. S. A. hadrequestedthe Company to remit Rs.12,7)2 being th'e freightpayableat Madrastowardsthe con signment of 19 boxes containingsecondhand ro'.ary press du: to arrivefrom New York by s.s. "SteelVendor·· so as to enablethem to cable to theirprincipalsat NewYorkto issuethe billsof Jadin~ to theshippers.A chequefor Rs. 12,712 was accordinglysent bythe Company to MessrsBinny & Co .. on Oc:ober 31. 1961. Thenecessarycable was thensent to NewYork. The import documentspertaining to therotarypress ere sent by accused no.I onbehalfof the Company to MessrsNatesa Iyer & Co., Clearing Agents.Madrasfor dearing the goodsfrom the Madras Port by theIndian Overseas BankLtd., Pursawalakam.Madras. Thisinvoicewas issued by theUniversal Printing. Equipment Company. Lindhurst in the nameof MessrsDina SeithiLtd., indicatingshipment of the goodsimportedcontainedin the 1.9 boxes· bearing ma1'ks "DinaSeithi". The customsduty and the clearancecharges were paid by the Company. lt is unnecessary to state at lengthfurtherdetails of the complaint.Suffice it to A I! c D E G H A B c D E F G II -· DY. CHIEF CONT. IMP. & EXP. v. K, ·r. KOSAL RAM (Dua, J.) 5 .t3 saythatthe press erectedby thetechniciansof "Keraia Dhwan.i" started functioning from May 20, 1962. In March,1962 the Deputy Superintendentof Police, Madras, visited the premises of this newspaperand foundthe rotaryprintingPress tallyingwith thedescriptiongiven in the ·invoice issued to theCompanyby R. Hoe & Co.,NewYork/London.The number458 assigned t<> the press was alsofoundon its majorparts.No rotarypress im portedby accusedno. l onbehalfof theCompany was found at its (thecompany's)premises. The amountreceivedby cheques and draftsfromDr. Thomaswere creditedto theaccountof MessrsMohanRam Press •of which Smt. GomatiDevi, wife of accusedno. J , was the soleproprietress. On thesebroadaver mentsit was prayedin thecomplaintthat accusednos. l to 3 and5 and6 beproceededagainst for offencesunder s. 120-B, l.P.C. readwiths.5 of Imports andExports(Cor.trol)Act, 1947 andalsofor an offenceunder s. 5 ofthesaidAct.Tne Company wasallegedto be guilty under s. 5 ofthesaidAct readwith cl: (5), sub-cl.(iv) of Imports (Control)Order, 1955. The Chief PresidencyMagistrate who triedthe complaint acquittedaccused no. 6 holdingthat he hadnothingto dowith theimpugnedtransactionbut convictedthe res!.The Company was sentenced to fine only and so wereaccusednos. 2, 3 ~ 5; threeindividualaccused persons were directed,in caseof default toundergorigorousimprisonmentfor threemonthson each count.Leniency was shown to accused nos. 2,3 and5 because they hadactedunderthe directionsgiven by accusedno. 1 who wa~ sentenced to rigorousimprisonmentfor sixmonthsunder eachcountand alsoto pay fine andin defaultto undergofurther rigorousimprisonmentfor threemonths. Theconvictedaccused appealedto theHigh Court at Madras and the State appliedfor enhancementof sentences.The High Court acquittedall theaccusedpersons with the resultthat tne· revisionfor enhancementnecessarily failed. TheHigh Court havingdeclinedcertificateof fitnessunder Art.134 (I)( c) of the Constitutionthe Deputy ChiefControllP.r of Imports & Exportssecured special leave to appealunder Art. 136of the Constitution againstthe order of acquittalby the High Court. In theHighCourt.thoughin thememorandumof appeal severalgrounds w~re tak~n: durin~ argumentsthe appellant's counselconfined his subm1ss1on mamly to thepointthat condition (c)of the lic.ence issuedto. accusedno. 4 (Ex. P / 12)relatedonly toraw m~tenal or a7cessones and th~t as suchthe saleof printing presswhichwas neitherraw material nor a.:cessories, did not contravenethat clause.The factumof saleof theprintingpress. 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 2 S.C.R. to Dr.Thomas(P. W. 16) was not disputed.The HighCourt .acceptingthis contentionheld condition( c)in Rx. PI 12 to be inapplicableto printing presses andobservedthat the Licensing Authorityhad not applied its mind when thiscondition was in sertedin thelicencefor importingthe printing press in question. On thisgroundthe convictionrecorded by the trialcourt was set aside.The appellant'slearned counselin this Court has questioned thecorrectnessof this view and has submitted that it is not sus tainableon thestatutoryprovisionsand has resulted in grave failureof justice. Beforedealing with this question we may ·dispose· of a pre liminaryobjection to the competency of this appealat theinstance of.theDeputyChief Controller of Import~ and Exports,raised by Shri H. R. Gokhale on behalf of therespondents.It has been pointedout thatthe specialleave petitionin thisCourtpurports tobe filed by theDeputyChief Controllerof Imports & Exports andnot by the State. As the Statehad conductedthe prosecution the complai:dant, it is argued,cannot seek leave nor can he prose cutethis appeal.Leave already granted ex parte is, according to Shri Gokhaleliable to be revoked. Reliance has been placedon Managementof HindustanCommercialBank Ltd., Kanpur v. Bhagwandass(1). Therethe appellanthad secured from this Court ex parte specialleave to appealunder Art. 136 of the Cons titutionwithoutfirst movin~ the HighCourtfor thenecessary certificateand this Court,on objectionby the· respondent,revoked thespecialleave as being in contravention o.f 0. 13, r. 2 ofthe Supreme CourtRules.The respondents'contention before us is that the PublicProsecutorand not the DeputyChief Controller of Imports & Exportshad appliedto theHighCourtfor lhe necessarycertificate aind, therefore, the DeputyChief Controller hasno locusstandi to applyfor specialleave.Having been grantedon an incompetentpetition the specialleave deserves to berevoked,argues Shri Gokhale. We are unable to uphold thisobjection.The complaint was filed in thecourtof theChief PresidencyMagistrate by the DeputyChief Controllerof Imports andExportsunder s. 6 of the Importsand Exports(Control Act,1947.It is not disputedthat this officer was, as statedin para 1 of the complaint, duly authorisedto makethe complaint withinthe contemplation of s. 6. In the appeals filed by the accusedagainst their convictionthe State was impleaded, as re presented by the DeputyChief ControJ!er of Importsand Exports (complainant), as therespondent. It is truethat in a petition forenhancementof sentence filed in theHighCourtthe Public Prosecutor was shown as thepetitionerand similarlythe applica tion for leaveto appealfrom the judgment of the. HighCourt was (1) (1965] (2) S.C.R.265. A B c B E F G Jtl A B c D E F G H D~. CHIEFCONT.IMP. & EXP. v. K. T. KOSAL RAM (Dua, J.)515 also filedin that Coun bythePublic Prosecutor. Butthat, in our view,does not in any way disentitlethe DeputyChief Con trollerof Importsand Exports(the originalcomplainantduly authorisedby thestatute)to applyfor specialleave to appeal to this Coun andto prosecutethe appeal. Our attentionhas not beendrawnto anyprovisionof lawwhichcan be said to deprive theDeputyChief Controllerthe lawfullyauthorisedcomplainant inthiscaseto seekspecialleave and prosecute this appeal; In any eventArt.136 of theConstitutionand the Supreme Court Rulesare wideenoughin theirlanguageto empowerthis Court to grantspecialleave to theDeputyChief Controller in cases like thepresentand dealwiththe appealon themerits.The prelimi nary objectionmust accordinglybe repelled. Coming to themerits we mayfor a whileagain tum to con dition( c) 6f the licencewhich has alrejldy been noticedearlier. It may be recalledthat this conditionexpressly provides that the goodswouldbe utili8ed only for consumptionas rawmaterial or accessoriesin thelicence-holder'sfactory and no portionthereof wouldbe soldto, or,be permittedto beutilisedby, anyotherparty. Thegoodsimportedare alsonot to be pledgedwith any financier otherthan banksauthorisedto dealin foreignexchange,provided thatparticularsof thegoodsso pledgedare reportedin advance tothelicensingauthority.Under s. 3 oftheImportsand Exports Act, 18 of1947the CentralGovernmentis empowered to pro videby orderpublishedin the official Gazettefor prohibiting, restricting or otherwisecontrollingthe iniport,export, carriage or shipmentetc., of goodsof anyspecifieddescription and also the bringinginto any pon or placein Indiaof goodsof anyspecified descriptionintended to .be taken out of Indiawithoutbeing re movedfrom the ship· or conveyancein whichthey are being carried.. TheCentralGovernmentby Order dated December7, J 95.5 ma~ tlle Import Control Clroer u11der ss. 3 and 4A ofthe said·Aet.Chi use ( 3) of this Orderprovidesfor restrictionon import of certaingoods in thesewords: "Save as otherwiseprovided in thisOrder,no person shall importany goodsof thedescriptionspecified in ScheduleI, exceptunder,and in accordancewith, a licence or a customsclearancepermit grantedby the Central Governmentor byanyofficerspecifiedin Schedule JI." Clause7 of thi.s Order empowersthe LicensingAuthority suo motu or on applicationby thelicenseeto amendthe licences grantedunder this Orderin suchmanner as may be necessary tomakethem conformto theaforesaid Act or this Order or any otherlaw in force or to rectifyany error or omissionin the licence: onthelicensee'srequest,however, the licencemay be 516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 2 S.C.R. amendedin any mayner consonantwith the Importand Export ControlRegulations.Item no. 67 ( 1) i:i ScheduleI, Part V, whichappearsto us to berelevantfor thiscasereads: "Printing and Lithographicmaterial, namely, pres ses, lithographicplates, composingsticks, chases, im posingtables, lithographicstones, stero-blocks,wood blocks,half-toneblocks, electro-typeblocks, process blocks,roller moulds,roller framesand stocks,roller composition,lithographic nap rollers,standing . screw andhot presses, perforatingmachines, gold blocking presses,galley presses,proof presses,armingpresses, copperplate printingpresses,rolling presses,ruling machines,ruling pen makingmachines,lead cutters, rulecutters,slug cutters, type castingmachines,type settingand casting,machines,paper in rolls with side perforationsto be used afterfurtherperforationfor type casting, rule bendingmachines,rule mitreingmachines, bronzingmachines,stereotypingapparatus, paper fold ing machines,paging machines,but excludingink and paperand sets of mats when imported as advertising materialin connection with composed films." Thisitem whichcontainsa verylargenumberof various compo nentsof a printingpress correspondsto item no. 72(2) ofthe Indian Tariff Act,1934whichconsolidatesthe law relating to customsduties. Item no. 67(2) in Schedule !'speaks of con:po nent parts as definedin importtariff item no. 72 ( 3), of machi nery specifiedin cl. (I) excludingthose covered by sl. no 68 of this Schedule. Serialno. 68 refers to rubberblankets.for printing pressesetc. Item no. 67 (I) would suggestthat printingpresses areincluded in theexpression "printing andlithographic material." Our attentionhas not beendrawnto anyotherentry ·either in ScheduleI oftheImportsControl Order or in thefirstSchedule oftheIndianTariff Act which would cover the importof printing pressesand paymentof customsduty on suchimport.These two statutesformingparts of theImportControlScheme may appro priately be considered as throwing some lighton eachother.The principalargumentadvancedon behalfof therespondents is that cl. (c) of theconditionsof thelicencedoes not coverthe printingpresses in questionbecause the plainlanguageof this clausepostulatesthat goodscoveredby it shouldbe capableof beingutilisedfor consumption as raw_ materialor accessoryin afactory.A completeprinting press, it is contended, is neither raw materialnor accessoriesand it cannotbe saidthat by fixing a printingpress for runningit, thepress is utilisedfor consump tion as raw matedal or accessory.This argument,though attractive on firstimpression seems to us on a deeperthoughtto A B c D ~'~ ,,_, iii E F G H j DY. CHIEF CONT. IMP. & EXP. v. K. T. KOSAL RAM (Dua, J.)517 A be unacceptable.A closescrutinyof theschemeand la~gu~ge of therelevantprovisionsof theimportand export leg1SlaUon and of the ImportControl Policy formulatedby theGovernment leavesno doubtthat the argument is unfounded.Clause ( c) reads: B c " ( c)Thegoods will be utilisedonly for con sumption as rawmaterialsor accessoriesin thelicence holders'factorv and thatno portionthereof will be sold toorbepemiittedto be utilised by anyotherpartyor pledgedwith any financierother thanBanksautho rised to dealin foreignexchangeprovided that parti cularsof goodsso pledgedare reportedin advanceto thelicensing authority." Therespondentshave soughtassistancefor theirargumentprin cipallyfrom the dictionarymeaning of thewords "consumption",. "rawmaterial" and "utilised" used in thisclause. "Consump- D tion", it is argued,conveys the·~dea of destructionof thecommo dityconsumedand "rawmaterial" according to this submission, must be "utilised" inthissense.In our oph1ion dictionarymean ings,howeverhelpful in understandingthe generalsense of .the words cannot c;ontrol wherethe schemeof thestatuteor thems trumentconsidered as a wholeclearlyconveysa somewhatdifferent shadeof meaning. It is notalwaysa safewayto con~true a Estatuteor a contractby dividingit bya processof etymological dissectionand afterseparatingwords from their context to give eachword some· particulardefinition given by lexicographersand then to reconstructthe instrumentupon the basisof thosedefini tions.What particular.meaning should be attached to wordsand phrases in agiven. instrument is usually to begathered from the F c_ontext, thenatureof thesubjectmatter,the purpose or the inten t10n of theauthorand the effectof giVing to them one or theother permissiblemeaning on theobjectto beachieved.Wordsare after all ,used merely as avehicle to conveythe ideaof the. speakeror the · wnterand the wordshave naturally,therefore, to be so constru.~d as ~o fit in with the ideawhichemergeson a considerationof the G entire context.Each word is but a symbolwhich may standfor oneor a numberof objects.The context,in whicha wordcon veyingdifferentshades of meanings is used, is of importance.in detenniningthe precise sense which fits in withthe context as intended to be conveyedby the author. Th~ words used in the licence(Ex. P/12) have accordingly to be construedin theback- Hgroundof theschemeof theImportControl Order, 1955, the entryno. 67 of ScheduleI to this Order and the ImportTrade Control Policy. Theword "consumption" as usedin cl.( c)in the licence seems to us to conveythe idea--of using up thegoodsby 6-L 436 Sup Cl/71 . 518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 2 S.C.R. fixing them in thefactoryalong with othercomponents.This is clear fromthe factthatentryno. 67 (1) in Schedule I-of the ImportControl Order does. not containany singleitem denoting acompleteprinting press and fromthe fact thatthe variousarticles mentionedin thisitemseem as if tohavebeenintended to cons titute "rawmaterial". This construction fits in withthe scheme andpolicyof theImportTrade Control as we will presently show.The dictionarymeaning of the threewordsin cl. ( c)on whichthe respondentrelies also seems, in ouropinionto harmo nise withthis view. The Governmentof India(Ministryof Commerceand In dustry) has beenpublishingfrom time to time ImportTrade Con trol Handbookon rulesand procedureproviding for the assis tanceof thoseinterestedin importsuptodateinformation as to themannerin whichapplicationsfor importlicencesshould be made,the appropriateauthority to be addressedin eachcase,the proceduregoverning the grantof licencesfor different classes of goods,the validityand use of importlicencesand 0ther similar matters. In theHandbookof 1956,which is the relevant Hand bookfor thiscasewhich relates to the licenceoriginallygranted in ·1960, ScheduleI commonlyknown as the ITC Schedule serves broadlyto classifythe articlesthat enterinto the importtrade. Part V of the Schedule coversindustrialrequirementsand it is in thispartthat the printingand lithographicmaterial including andotheritems are enteredat sl. no. 67 (1), already noticed by us. This Handbookemphasisesthe importanceof correct classi ficationwith referenceto theserialnumberand partof the ITC Schedule.In AppendixIII of theHandbookapplicationforms areprescribed.Form B is the onewhich was usedby the respon dents.This form is meantfor theimportof goodsby actual users not borneon theregistersmaintainedby the Industrial Advisers, Ministryof Commerce and Industry,when licence is soughtfor importof goods(other than thosefallingunder the capitalgoods licensingprocedure) vide : Governmentof India,Ministryof Commerceand Industry Order No. 17 /55 dated7th December, 1955. It is expresslystated in therespondents'application [Ex. P/11 (b)J that the rawmaterialwas requiredby themfor printing newspaper(Dina Seithi, Tamil Daily): fullparticulars :if the rawmaterialsrequired to be · importedwere given as printing machineryand proforma was attachedwith the application.ITC numberand part was specificallystated to be 67 (1 )(i), PartV. It was on thebasisof thisapplicationthat the licenceEx. PI 12 wasgrantedsubject inter alia to condition( c). The Governmentof India,Ministryof Commerceand Indus~ry also publishes from time to timeImportTrade Control Policy A B c D F G H I l • I I • • A DY. CHIEF CONT. IMP. & EXP. v. K. T. KOSAL RAM (Dua, J.) 519 for thevariouslicensingperiods.In thepublicationfor the licen singperiodApril-September, 1960 we fin4 the policystatement, showingthe list of itemslicensableto actualusers.At p. 360 in Appendix IV, Part V, items67(1 )(i) and 67(2) occur.Item 67(1)(i) reads: :e "Printing machinery(for NewspaperEstablishments c D E F c H and quality printers)." Item 67(2) reads: "Component parts of printing machinery". It is obviousthat in the respondents'application serial no. 670) (i) refers to this item in the ImportTrade ControlPolicy, April September, 1960, the periodrelevantfor thiscase.There is no otheritem in any one of thel listswhichcoversprintingpresses as a separateitem. This clearly shows that the printingpresses aretreatedby legislativeintendment as Printing material or Print ing machinery.Form 'B' usedin thepresentcase indicatesthat thePressintended to be imported was not considered 10 fallunder theCapitalGoods LicensingProcedure.It seemsthat it is for all thesereasonsthat in the licenceit was providedthat these good5 would be utilisedonly for consumption as rawmaterial or acces sories in the licence-holder'sfactory. The words "utilbed'',"con sumption" and "rawmaterial" have to be fittedinto the clearly discernablestatutory scheme and this is P°'>sible withoutdoing violence to thedictionarymeaning of these word,. The appro priatedictionarymeaning of words possessingvariable shades of meaningshas notto bearbitrarily selected andmechanically appliedwithoutconsideringthe setting in which they are used and thepurposesought to beachieved. There is anothervery cogentfactor in this case,namely,that therespondents,when they soughtlicencefor theimportof print ing pressexpresslyrepresentedthat the importedgoods were re quiredto meetthe increasingdemand of circulation of their newspaper.This indeed was the solegroundfor importingthe press.The amendedlicence was also secured by the respondents sG as to enablethem to import two printingpresses on theground thatone press was requiredfortheir Maduraioffiee as well. Licencefor boththe printingpresses was obtainedfor actual use by themfor theirnewspapers.Had they not compliedwith the proceduremeant for the importof goodsby actualusers, they mightnot havesecuredthe necessarylicence. Having secureda licenceexpresslyfor theimportof goodsfor their use theymay notbe permittedto ignorethe conditionof actual user 011 theplea (whichby nomeansseems to be virtuous)that cl. ( c) is inappli cablie toactualusers. 520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971]2 S.C.11.. The respondents on theirown showingclearly knew t!;eir dis abilityunder the conditionsimposed by cl. ( c) of thelicence. Knowingfull wellthe conditionprohibitingthe transferof thi: press to otherpersonsthe respondents as the correspondenceto whichour attentionhas been drawn shows were actually nego tiatingfor the saleof oneof thepressesduring the periodwhen theprocedurein regardto itsimport was beingca,rriedout. On July 2, 1961amendmentof thelicence was soughtso as to import one mo;e printingpress and onJuly17, 1961its resale was actuallyfinalisedand a part of thepricealso received.These facts do not needany commenton the intention and bona (ides of the respondents.It is unnecessary to go intothe evidenceon this pointbecause, as alreadynoticed,it is not disputedthat one of theprintingpresses was actually sold to Dr.Thomasprior to its arrival.in India.The amendmentof thelicencealso appearsto havebeen soughtwith the object of resellingthe secondpress. Theonlyargumenturged namelythat condition( c) was inappli cableto thepresentcase havingbeen repelled,the appeal,in our view,must succeedand the orderof theHighCourtreversed. The· validityof condition( c) in thelicencehas not been question ed and in ouropinionrightly in viewof thedecisionof this Court in Mis. Ramchand Jagdish Chand v. Union of Tndia( 1). T~ere is neither any legalnor equitablejustificationfor resellingthe primingpress. A B c D The suggestionfaintly thrown that theCompany wa; the E holderof thelicenceand, therefoc~. the otha respondents( ac cused pers•)ns) should not be heldliable is also withoutmerit. On the factsfoundand on theauthorityof State of West Bengal v. MotilalKanoria( 2 ) .allthe respoo1dents (theindividual accusedpersons along with the Company)are guilty. Theargumentthat the HighCourthavingacquittedthe res pondentson a viewwhich is a possibleview this Courtshould notconvertacquittalinto convictionunder Art. 136 of the Cons titutionhas not appealedto us. The viewof theHigh Court does notseem to be sustainableon thestatutorylanguageand on the ImportControlPolicy of whichthe respondentswere fully aware. Theirown application is proofpositiveof theirawarenessof the trueposition an4 the breach.of theconditionsof thelicenceon theirpart was deliberate. Indeed, as observedearlier. the per mission fo~ the importof thesecond press was apparentlysought withthe ol:ject of itsresale.Breach of conditionsfor import of goods is a seriousmatterbecauseit pre,iudicially affects our country'snational economy.The imponlicencefor the second presshaving. in our view. been sought on false representationwith (1) f:9r.~; ~ c.:r.R. 7.'.!. f:2} fi96tJ 3 ·"·C.R. 93.1. y· G H. ' • I I ) ' ~- A B c 0 DY. CHIEF CONT.IMP. & EXP., v. K, T. KOSAL RAM (Dua, J,) 521 the objectand purposeof itsresalethe breach of thelicence was, therefore,fully intendedand designed.The respondentsare guilty of malpracticesand of abuseof theimportlicencewith theobjectof makingmoney.We, however, think that in view of thefactthatthis litigationhas beenpendingsince a longtime it wouldmeet the endsof justice if we imposemerely fine and do notsentenceanyone to imprisonment.The finalresult is that the orderof theHighCourt is set asideand accusednos. 1, 2, 3 and ·5 areconvictedunder s. 120-B, I.P.C. and s. 5 of the Imports & ExportsAct, 194 7 read with cl. 5 of the Import Con trolOrder, 19 5 5 andeachof theaccusednos. 2, 3 and S are sentencedto paya fine of Rs. 2,000/- undereachcount. Accused no. 1 who is theprincipalculprit and who was sen tenced by the trialcourtto imprisonmentand fine is sentenced topaya fine of Rs. 5,000/- ·under each. count. In defaultof payment of finethe defaultingaccused persons will undergo rigorousimprisonmentfor tbree months. The Company is con victedonly under s. 5 of theImports & ExportsAct readwith cl. 5 of theImportControl Order and sentencedto paya fine of Rs. 2,000/-. V.P.S. Appealallowed. |
