TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the disposal of the imported plant and machinery without prior permission amounted to a contravention of the import licence and the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 so as to attract penalty under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947; (ii) Whether the respondent could validly be convicted as the responsible person despite the complaint and arraignment being not happily framed.
Issue (i): Whether the disposal of the imported plant and machinery without prior permission amounted to a contravention of the import licence and the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 so as to attract penalty under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
Analysis: The licence, though granted before the 1955 Order, was brought within that Order by the saving provision in clause 12, and the later revalidation further attracted the regime of clause 7. The licence itself required the goods to be used by the licensee and not transferred except with authority. Under clause 5(3) and clause 5(4), the relevant conditions were deemed to form part of every licence and had to be complied with. The sale of the machinery without permission therefore constituted breach of a deemed condition of the licence, which was also a breach of the Order. The fact that the penal provision had earlier been understood narrowly did not assist the respondent once the 1955 Order and the amended scheme operated together.
Conclusion: The disposal of the machinery without permission did amount to a contravention, and the offence under section 5 was made out.
Issue (ii): Whether the respondent could validly be convicted as the responsible person despite the complaint and arraignment being not happily framed.
Analysis: The respondent had personally conducted the transactions, signed the relevant documents, and was the effective actor through whom the licence was obtained and the goods were transferred. On the materials, he was not a mere bystander but the person principally responsible for the contravention. The ambiguity in the complaint as to whether the company or the respondent was the accused did not vitiate the conviction, because he was treated and understood as an accused at the trial and no failure of justice was shown. The defect was therefore curable and could not justify reversal.
Conclusion: The respondent was liable and the conviction was sustainable despite the pleading irregularity.
Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence were restored, the breach of the import licence being held punishable under section 5 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a later import control order, by a saving clause and deemed-condition scheme, incorporates licence conditions into every licence, breach of those conditions constitutes contravention of the order and is punishable under the parent Act; a conviction will not be upset for a curable complaint defect absent failure of justice.
TaxTMI 
