| Headnote |
681 A ADDL. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA & ORS. B c D E F G H v. BEST & COMPANY October 23, 197 0 [J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) Imports & Exports (Control) Act. 18 of 1947-Imports (Co11tro{) Order 1955 issued under ss. 3 and 4A of Act-Sea Custom.< Act 8 of 1878-S. 3 of Act 18 of 1947 providing llhat goodsto which an order under $. 3 ( 1 ) appliedwould be deemed to be goods whoseimport & export isprohibitedunder·'· 19 of Act 8 of 1878--Contrnvention ·of s. 19 punish <1ble by confiscation of goodsand penalty u11der s. 167(8) of Act 8 of 1878-CI. 3 of 1955 OrderprohibitingImport of specified 1100. By cl. 5certainconditions.could be imposedby the LicensingAuthorityissuing a licence. It maybe recalledthat one of the conditions of the licence issuedby the respondent was thatthe value .of anyitemshallnot exceed the C.I.F.value indicatedin theltcenceby morethan 5%. It was the case of theCustomsauthoritiesthat the real value of themachineryimported exceededthe aeclaredvalue, and on thataccountthe respondentshad infringedthe conditions of the licence.In East India Commerclal Company Ltd., Cal cutta & Anr. v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta(1) this Court heldthat s. 167 cl. 8 of the Sea CustomsAct, 1878,read with s. 3(2) of the Importsand Exports(Control)Act, 1947, autho risedthe impositionof penalty, if gcods were imported in co.n travention of any orderunderthe Importsand Exports(Control) Act,1947: butthe sectiondid not,expressly or by implication authoriseconfiscationof goods imported under a validlicence onthegroundthat a condition of thelicencenot imposedby theorder was infringed. This view was reiterated by this Court in Boothalinga Agencies v. T. C. Porfaswami Nadar( 2). These cases were decidedon thetnterpretation of s. 5, of theImportsand Exports(Control) Act,194 7, as it stoodbefore it was amended by Act 4 of 1960 By the Importsand Exports(Control)AmendmentAct 4 of 1960, in s. 5, afterthe words 'any ordermade er deemed to havebeenmadeunderthis Act,." the words "or any condition ofa licencegrantedunder any such order" were inserted.Con travention of anycondition of a licencegrantedunder any order was therefore liableto bepunishedunder s. 5 as amended. (1) t1963) 3 S.C.R. 338. (2) [1959] 1 S.C.R. 65. 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (197 J J 2 S.C.R. fu the presentcase the Customs authoritiesdid not direct pro· secutionfor contravention of any conditionof a licence : they directedconfiscationof themachineryand imposedpenalty in lieu thereof.But on the terms of ~. 5 as amended,the right to imposepenaltyfor contravcintion of anycondition ·of a liccDCe may be exercisedunder the Sea Customs Act, 1878,and not underthe Importsand Exports(Control)Act, 1947.For breach of any conditionof a licence,it is open to the authorities to directprosecution,but no orderconfiscatinggoods and imf.OS· ing penalty in lieuthereofcould be made.The order of con fiscationcould only be madeunder s. 167 cl. 8 ofthe Sea Cus tomsAct,1878 : interms cl. 8 of s. 167providesfor confis· cation of the goods importationor exportationof which is for the time beiag prohibitedor restrictedby or underCh. IV of the Sea CustomsAct, 1878. The notificationof which the contravention is saidto havebeenmade, is not issued unders. 19 of the Sea CustomsAct, but under the Importsand Export5 (Control)Act, 1947. It has not beenurgedbefore us, and rightly,that penaltyof confiscation is incurredunder the provi sions oi the Sea CustomsAct, 1878,for breachof the condi tions of thelicence. Inourjudgment,the High Court was right in holding that thescope of power underthe Sea CustomsAct was lliot enlarged by the amendmentto s. 5 of theImportsand Exports(Control) Actand there is nothinl( in the amended s. 5 of the Imports . and' Exports(Control)Act which warrants the vi~w that the provisionsof the Sea Custo~~ Act,, 1~78, may be mvok-ed. to puhlshthe breach of a condition of a lic~ce grq,nted underthe Imports and Exports (Cotttrol) Act,1947. The appealfails and is dismissed. Th.ere will be no order as to costs. G.C. Appeal dismissed. A B c D E ' |
