TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (2) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was devaluation of the Indian Rupee. In order to lessen the hardship of the traders who had contracts with foreign buyers Notification was issued by the Central Government under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on 11th June, 1966. Under the said notification it was provided that the goods specified in the Schedule to the said notification would be exempt from the duty of Customs leviable thereon under the 2nd Schedule of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. It was recorded by the learned Judge that subject to certain conditions mentioned in the said notification it is undisputed that the goods in question involved in that writ petition are the goods which were specified in the Schedule under the said notification. The conditions mentioned in the said notification are inter alia as follows : "(A) That the goods are sought to be exported under valid 'contracts' with their sales price expressed in foreign currency, entered into on or before the 5th June, 1966. (B) That the contracts referred to in Clause (A)(i) were registered or submitted for registration with the export contracts registration committee on or before the 5th of June, 1966....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lcutta. To : M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat Udyog Ltd., 18, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta. Dear Sirs, Sub : 70 Bills Per S.S. Jaladhanya Rot No. 90-5/66, Shipping Bills Nos. D.E.D.J. 8808 and 8820, 8819, 8804, 88013, 8215, dated 20-7-1966 under cover of Bonds exported free of export duty. ______ Examination of the documentary evidence furnished by you in terms of the Bonds and a number of your letters of explanations and contentions reveal that on 31st March, 1966 through the exchange brokers M/s. Poddar Saraogi and Co. of 22, Brabourne Road, Calcutta, you entered into a forward exchange contract Sr, 12629 with the Central Bank of India covering U.S. 6000, 100/- against sight bills at the rate of Rs. 477, 75-100/- payable at New York delivery period 31st August, to 30th September, 1966. Your declaration in the form of Annexure 'A' bearing Customs House Registration No. Jute 030A, dated 4-7-1966 shows the amount of foreign exchange sold as U.S. 3,751.28 on 31-3-1966 which appeared to be the balance outstanding on 6-6-1966 from the said forward exchange contract." 3. Apart from the question of the alleged export of excess quantity, the dispute between the Petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the contracts had been entered into before 5th of June, 1966. The contract with the authorised dealer was not entered into after the contract for the sale of goods but prior to that. Though a case to the contrary was sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner to that aspect, the learned judge did not accept the same but proceeded on the basis that assuming the facts alleged in the said show cause notices be true, whether there was non-compliance of the notification and whether the respondent had any jurisdiction to proceed. It was contended on behalf of the appellant herein that there was an implied condition, namely, that the contracts for the sale of foreign exchange should be entered into subsequent to contracts of sale of the goods but prior to 5th June, 1966. The learned Judge referred to the clauses in the notification dated 13th of June, 1966 and pointed out that it did not refer to any obligation of entering into contracts subsequent to the contract for sale of goods. Reliance was placed on behalf of the department on the show cause notices which provide that the principles enunciated in Section XXVIII of the Exchange Control Manual would govern such contracts for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsequent to the contracts for the sale of goods. The learned Judge rejected the said contention and held that this contract for the sale of foreign exchange had been entered into prior to 5th of June and whether it has been entered into before or after the contract for the same of goods is immaterial. Accordingly, the learned Judge held that this part of the show cause notices therefore, on the undisputed facts appear to be without jurisdiction. 7. So far as the allegation regarding the excess quantity of shipment is concerned, though it was factually disputed by the petitioner in the main writ petition, the learned Judge held that he could riot at this stage adjudicate same in that writ petition in view of the factual dispute and, accordingly, the learned Judge did not accept such contention. The learned judge did not also accept the contention that in view of the provision of Section 28, the writ petition was barred. 8. Practically no new submission was made before us excepting what has been stated before the learned trial judge. It was submitted that clause 'C' of the notification meant that such agreement with the authorised dealer must be subsequent to the agre....