TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1970 (9) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were both Directors of the Company, accused No. 1 being the Director-in-charge attending to its day to day management and administration. He was also authorised to operate its accounts with the banks. The primary object of the Company was publication of a Tamil daily newspaper "Dina Seithi". Accused No. 3 was the Manager of Messrs Mohan Ram Press located in the same building in which the Company was located. Srimati Gomati Devi, wife of accused No. 1 was the sole proprietress of this Press. She had given power of attorney to her husband for operating the bank account of her Press. The daily newspaper (Dina Seithi) used to be printed at this press. Accused No. 5 was a broker engaged in the business of negotiating sale and purchase of printing machinery. Between 1949 and 1951 he was working as Chief Salesman of Printers' House, Madras and before that for about two years he had worked as a salesman with Messrs Standard Printing Machinery Company, Madras. In 1951 he started his independent business as a broker; in addition he also used to work as a correspondent of "Kerala Kaumudi" belonging to the Company. Accused No. 6 was the Manager of the Company and his wife Smt. Sarojini was one....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mendment in the licence. This request was granted with the approval of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The amended licence was despatched to the Company on January 3, 1962 . According to Condition (c) reproduced on the reverse of the import licence the licence-holder had to utilise the goods imported only for consumption in his own factory and its sale to or use by other parties was specifically prohibited. The licence-holder was further prohibited from pledging the imported goods in whole or in part except with a scheduled bank duly authorised to deal in foreign exchange and that also with prior permission of the Licensing Authority. 2.One Dr. K.G. Thomas owned "Kerala Dhwani", a daily newspaper of Kottayam having circulation in the State of Kerala. It has started on August 20, 1959 and C.J. Mani was its general business manager ever since its inception. On November 10, 1960 Dr. Thomas applied to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports on behalf of his firm for importing a rotary printing press under a Customs Clearance Permit. But this was rejected. On October 25, 1961 he sent another application dated October 3, 1961 on behalf of the firm requesting for an impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount in cash towards the letter of credit. On October 20, 1961 Messrs Binny & Co., Madras, the agents of the Shipping Company Messrs Isthmian Lines Inc., U.S.A. had requested the Company to remit Rs. 12,712 being the freight payable at Madras towards the consignment of 19 boxes containing secondhand rotary press due to arrive from New Yark by S.S. "Steel Vendor" so as to enable them to cable to their principals at New York to issue the bills of lading to the shippers. A cheque for Rs. 12,712 was accordingly sent by the Company to Messrs Binny & Co., on October 31, 1961. The necessary cable was then sent to New York. The import documents pertaining to the rotary press were sent by accused No. 1 on behalf of the Company to Messrs Natesa Iyer & Co., Clearing Agents, Madras for clearing the goods from the Madras Port by the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., Pursawalakam, Madras. This invoice was issued by the Universal Printing Equipment Company, Lindhurst in the name of Messrs Dina Seithi Ltd., indicating shipment of the goods imported contained in the 19 boxes bearing marks "Dina Seithi". The customs duty and the clearance charges were paid by the Company. It is unnecessary to state at len....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal several grounds were taken, during arguments the appellant's counsel confined his submission mainly to the point that condition (c) of the licence issued to accused No. 4 (Ex. P/12) related only to raw material or accessories and that as such the sale of printing press which was neither raw material nor accessories, did not contravene that clause. The factum of sale of the printing press to Dr. Thomas (P.W. 16) was not disputed. The High Court accepting this contention held condition (c) in Ex. P/12 to be inapplicable to printing presses and observed that the Licensing Authority had not applied its mind when this condition was inserted in the licence for importing the printing press in question. On this ground that conviction recorded by the trial court was set aside. The appellant's learned Counsel in this Court has questioned the correctness of this view and has submitted that it is not sustainable on the statutory provisions and has resulted in grave failure of justice. 7.Before dealing with this question we may dispose of a preliminary objection to the competency of this appeal at the instance of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, raised by Shri H.R. Gok....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be said to deprive the Deputy Chief Controller the lawfully authorised complainant in this case to seek special leave and prosecute this appeal. In any event Article 136 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules are wide enough in their language to empower this Court to grant special leave to the Deputy Chief Controller in cases like the present and deal with the appeal on the merits. The preliminary objection must accordingly be repelled. 8.Coming to the merits we may for a while again turn to condition (c) of the licence which has already been noticed earlier. It may be recalled that this condition expressly provides that the goods would be utilised only for consumption as raw material or accessories in the licence-holder's factory and no portion thereof would be sold to, or, be permitted to be utilised by, any other party. The goods imported are also not to be pledged with any financier other than banks authorised to deal in foreign exchange, provided that particulars of the goods so pledged are reported in advance to the licensing authority. Under Section 3 of the Imports and Export Act, 18 of 1947 the Central Government is empowered to provide by order published in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns a very large number of various components of a printing press corresponds to Item No. 72(2) of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 which consolidates the law relating to Customs duties. Item No. 67(2) in Schedule I speaks of component parts as defined in import Tariff Item No. 72(3), of machinery specified in Clause (1) excluding those covered by Sl. No. 68 of this Schedule. Serial No. 68 refers to rubber blankets for printing presses etc. Item No. 67(1) would suggest that presses are included in the expression "printing and lithographic material." Our attention has not been drawn to any other entry either in Schedule I of the Imports Control Order or in the first Schedule of the Indian Tariff Act which would cover the import of printing presses and payment of customs duty on such import. These two statutes forming parts of the Import Control Scheme may appropriately be considered as throwing some light on each other. The principal argument advanced on behalf of the respondents is that Clause (c) of the conditions of the licence does not cover the printing presses in question because the plain language of this clause postulates that goods covered by it should be capable of being utilise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the idea which emerges on a consideration of the entire context. Each word is but a symbol which may stand for one or a number of objects. The context, in which a word conveying different shades of meanings is used," is of importance in determining the precise sense which fits in with the context as intended to be conveyed by the author. The words used in the licence (Ex. P/12) have accordingly to be construed in the back-ground of the scheme of the Import Control Order, 1955, the entry No. 67 of Schedule I to this Order and the Import Trade Control Policy. The word "consumption" as used in Clause (c) in the licence seems to us to convey the idea of using up the goods by fixing them in the factory along with other components. This is clear from the fact that Entry No. 67(1) in Schedule I of the Import Control Order does not contain any single item denoting a complete printing press and from the fact that the various articles mentioned in this item seem as if to have been intended to constitute "raw material". This construction fits in with the scheme and policy of the Import Trade Control as we will presently show. The dictionary meaning of the three words in Clause (c) on which th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement, showing the list of items licensable to actual users. At p. 360 in Appendix IV, Part V, Items 67(1)(i) and 67(2) occur. Item 67(1)(i) reads : "Printing machinery (for Newspaper Establishments and quality printers)." Item 67(2) reads : "Component parts of printing machinery". It is obvious that in the respondents' application Serial No. 67(1)(i), refers to this item in the Import Trade Control Policy, April-September, 1960, the period relevant for this case. There is no other item in any one of the lists which covers printing presses as a separate item. This clearly shows that the printing presses are treated by legislative intendment as Printing material or Printing machinery. Form `B' used in the present case indicates that the Press intended to be imported was not considered to fall under the Capital Goods Licensing Procedure. It seems that it is for all these reasons that in the licence it was provided that these goods would be utilised only for consumption as raw material or accessories in the licence-holder's factory. The words "utilised", "consumption" and "raw material" have to be fitted into the clearly discernable statutory scheme and this is possible without d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... repelled, the appeal, in our view, must succeed and the order of the High Court reversed. The validity of condition (c) in the licence has not been questioned and in our opinion rightly in view of the decision of the Court in M/s. Ramchand Jagdish Chand v. Union of India - (1962) 3 SCR 72. There is neither any legal nor equitable justification for reselling the printing press. 13.The suggestion faintly thrown that the Company was the holder of the licence and, therefore, the other respondents (accused persons) should not be held laible is also without merit. On the facts found and on the authority of State of West Bengal v. Motilal Kanoria - (1966) 3 SCR 933 all the respondents (the individual accused persons along with the Company) are guilty. 14.The argument that the High Court having acquitted the respondent on a view which is a possible view this Court should not convert acquittal into conviction under Article 136 of the Constitution has not appealed to us. The view of the High Court does not seem to be sustainable on the statutory language and on the Import Control Policy of which the respondents were fully aware. Their own application is proof positive of their awareness o....