1986 (1) TMI 278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ence and Imprest Licences. Under Paragraph 183 of the Import Policy for the period AM-81 and AM-82, a facility was granted to Export Houses to import CGL goods against such licences subject to the condition that such goods should be sold to actual users. Paragraph 382 of the relevant Hand Book prescribes that the licence holders could grant a letter of authority in favour of persons who arrange import of goods. 2. The petitioners were issued Imprest Licence bearing No. 0449345, dated May 12, 1981 for the import of uncut and unset diamonds of the value of Rs. 3,59,34,782/- subject to an export obligation of Rs.5,52,84,280/-. One of the conditions of the licence was that it would be subject to the conditions in force relating to the g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of any animal origin including mutton tallow. Even after June 5, 1981, import of beef tallow was made by various persons and the same was duly cleared by the Customs authorities. In July 1983, it was discovered that some unscrupulous people had adulterated vanaspati by using beef tallow in its manufacture and that discovery led to the uproar in the country. The petitioners were then placed under abeyance by secret circular issued on November 9, 1983. 4. On March 24, 1984, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, M/s Mangla Brothers, and M/s Aron Chemicals Private Limited, Bombay alleging that the import of beef tallow was illegal and unauthorised and in contravention of Clause 8 of the Imports Control Order. The petitione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the said clause. Shri Bulchandani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, was unable to point out any one of the violations which could be attracted in the present case and had to desperately submit that the petitioners abetted the unauthorised import of beef tallow. It is impossible to accede to this submission. A person could be guilty of abetment provided he has connived at or has actively associated in commission of unauthorised act. The respondent No. 2 has found that the petitioners specifically advised M/s Mangla Brothers to import only those goods which were permissible but M/s Mangla Brothers exceeded the authority. On the strength of this finding, it is impossible to hold that the petitioners had abetted the impor....