1973 (1) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, Ext. P1, dated 20-3-1967 issued by the Iron and Steel Controller in the Ministry of Iron and Steel, Government of India. Accordingly three licenses were issued to the petitioner by the Import and Export Controller in April and May, 1968, for import of stainless steel sheets. All that the petitioner really wanted was only stainless strips; and the goods actually imported under the above three licences were stainless steel strips. Import duty on stainless steel sheets is 100% of the cost, while the duty on the import of stainless steel strips is only 271/2%. The petitioner cleared the goods on payment of cent per cent duty. But subsequently he came to realise that he was liable to pay only 27% duty. Accordingly he made an application for r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... determination is whether the license issued to the petitioner which was admittedly for import of stainless steel sheets covered the goods which he actually imported viz. stainless steel strips. There can be no doubt that stainless steel sheets and stainless steel strips are commercially different goods. The rates of duty on the import of these goods are also different. Ordinarily, a licence issued for import of a particular goods cannot cover any other commercially different goods. But it is contended that by virtue of the public notice, Ext. P1 a licence issued for import of stainless steel sheets would cover also plates, strips and circles of stainless steel. Ext. P1 reads :- "Attention is invited to Iron and Steel Controller's Pub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rovision, it has to be construed in favour of the alleged offender, if the said provision is capable of two interpretations, one in favour of the offender, and the other against him. On that ground also, it has to be held that the petitioner has not imported goods not covered by the licence issued to him. 4. There is also another ground which entitled the petitioner to succeed in this action. The penalty imposed against him is under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. It reads :- "112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. - Any person,- (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission or ....