1981 (9) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n February 16, 1972, Simco Industries issued a letter of authority in favour of the petitioners authorising them to import the goods specified in the licences. On January 28, 1972, one Ebrahim Enterprises having their offices at Hongkong offered to the petitioners a lot of brand new non-magnetic seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes of diameter 1/4" to 1" in 16/26 gauge, of all mixed lengths of 8' and more. By letter dated February 14, 1972, the petitioners offered to purchase 5 tonnes out of the lot. On February 16, 1972, Ebrahim Enterprises confirmed that the goods would be sold to the petitioners at the price of £ 550/- per ton. Accordingly, a contract was entered into between the petitioners and Ebrahim Enterprises on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the same fate by an order dated September 5, 1977. These orders are under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The short question which requires answer is whether the petitioners have contravened clause 5(3) (iii) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. Clause 5 of the order sets out conditions of licences and sub-clause (3) of Clause 5 provides that in addition to the conditions mentioned in sub-clause (1), every licence shall be deemed to include the conditions mentioned in clause 3. Condition under sub-clause (3) (iii) is that the goods for the import of which a licence is granted shall be new goods, other than disposal goods, unless otherwise stated in the licence. The show cause notice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have been possible to claim that the goods imported are not new goods. In the present case, none of the three authorities below have proceeded on the basis that the goods imported are second-hand goods or goods which are used one. The conclusion is recorded that the goods are disposal goods merely from the fact that the lot purchased by the petitioners contained goods which are of varying size. In my judgment, the inference drawn by the three authorities below is totally unsustainable. The expression "disposal goods" occurring in sub-clause (3) (iii) of Clause 5 of Import (Control) Order must be read in the context of expression "new goods" used in the same clause. The expression "disposal goods" is used as "contradistinction to new goods".....