Disposal goods proof requires independent evidence; assorted quality and low price alone do not invalidate the import licence.

Mere assortment in quality and size, or import at reduced prices, was held insufficient to prove that the consignments were disposal goods under the Import Trade Control Order, 1955. The decisive consideration was whether there was independent evidence that the goods were not new and unused, or that they came from a clearance-sale type transaction. A letter relied on by Revenue could not be used against the importer because it related to another party's correspondence and was not shown to form part of the importer's transaction. In the absence of further supporting material, the evidentiary burden was not discharged and the import licence could not be invalidated on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported consignments were proved to be disposal goods so as to invalidate the import licence under clause 5(3)(iii) of the Import Trade Control Order, 1955.

Analysis: The mere fact that the goods were assorted in quality and size and had been imported at reduced prices was held to be insufficient, by itself, to establish that they were disposal goods. The decisive question was whether there was independent evidence showing that the goods were not new and unused or that they had been obtained in a clearance-sale type transaction. The letter relied upon by the Revenue could not be treated as evidence against the respondent because it related to correspondence with another importer and was not shown to form part of the respondent's transaction. In the absence of further supporting material, the Revenue failed to discharge the evidentiary burden.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not proved to be disposal goods, and the import licence could not be treated as invalid on that basis.

---