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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the imported bearings could be treated as "disposal goods" so as to fall outside the permissible import licence and render the import liable to confiscation.
Analysis: The decisive question was whether the expression "disposal goods" could be read as covering stock lots or job lots merely because the goods were assorted, old, or sold in bulk. The term was not defined in the import policy, and the departmental circular relied upon was an inter-departmental communication without disclosed reasons or trade notice effect. The goods were found to be new, and the mere facts that they had been packed years earlier, stored abroad, sold through a stock-list arrangement, or shipped from Australia did not by themselves establish that they were disposal goods. The evidence also did not substantiate the allegation that the import price was materially lower than comparable goods.
Conclusion: The goods were not proved to be disposal goods, and the import could not be denied on that basis; confiscation was therefore unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The importers succeeded in both matters, and the confiscatory orders were set aside with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods do not become "disposal goods" merely because they are sold in lots, are assorted, or are old in age; absent proof that the goods are not new or otherwise fall within the prohibited class, import cannot be denied on that ground.