TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Customs Violation Ruling, Emphasizes Prohibited Imports, Dismisses Appeal</h1> <h3>Girdharilal Bansidhar Versus Union Of India</h3> The court upheld the findings of the Collector and Central Board of Revenue, dismissing the appeal. The appellant was found guilty of misdescribing ... - Issues Involved1. Misdescription of imported goods.2. Validity of import licence for the imported goods.3. Violation of Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.4. Procedural irregularity and principles of natural justice.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Misdescription of Imported GoodsThe appellant imported 221 cases of bolts and nuts, described in the Bills of Entry as 'Stove Bolts and Nuts' under an import licence obtained in November 1951. However, the Customs authorities suspected that the goods were mis-described and were actually parts of 'Jackson Type single bolt oval platebelt fasteners,' whose importation was prohibited by a Notification issued in January 1952. The appellant conceded during the hearing before the Collector that the name 'stove bolts and nuts' was a misdescription of the actual articles imported.2. Validity of Import Licence for the Imported GoodsThe appellant argued that the import licence entitled him to import iron and steel bolts and nuts, regardless of their intended use, as long as they were not adapted for use on cycles. The court examined the import licence and the relevant Import Trade Regulations, concluding that the ban on 'Jackson type single bolt belt fasteners' extended to their component parts as well. The court rejected the argument that the scheme of the Import Trade Control Hand-book allowed the importation of component parts separately if the assembled article was prohibited.3. Violation of Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs ActThe Collector found that the appellant was guilty of contravening Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, which prohibits the importation of goods whose importation is restricted or prohibited. The Collector determined that the bolts and screws imported were specifically adapted for use as components of 'single bolt belt fasteners' and could not be used for any other purpose. The court upheld this finding, emphasizing that the importation of components with no use other than as parts of a prohibited article is also prohibited.4. Procedural Irregularity and Principles of Natural JusticeThe appellant contended that the Collector's decision was vitiated by procedural irregularity and a violation of natural justice because the notice to show cause did not mention the importation of washers by Nawanagar Industries Ltd., a firm controlled by the appellant's close relations. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the importation of washers was not the subject of any charge against the appellant but merely evidence confirming the nature of the imported goods. The court found no procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice, as the appellant had been given a fair hearing and the opportunity to rebut the evidence.ConclusionThe court dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the Collector and the Central Board of Revenue. The appellant was found guilty of misdescribing the goods and violating Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The court emphasized that the importation of component parts of a prohibited article is also prohibited if those parts have no use other than as components of the prohibited article. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
