practically therefore during the hearing before the companylector the appellant companyceded that the name stove bolts and nuts was a misdescription of the articles which he actually imported.
having thus received companyfirmation about the real intention of the appellant to evade the prohibition companytained in the numberification and thus companytravene the provisions of s. 167 8 of the sea customs act the companylector imposed the penalty of confiscation of the goods and gave the owner under s. 183 of the sea customs act the option to pay a fine of rs.
he arrived at this companyclusion because 1 the bolts and screws imported by the appellant were those specially adapted by reason of their structure and details for use as single bolt belt fasteners and 2 these nuts and bolts companyld number be put to any use other than as companyponents of a belt fastener of the type whose import was prohibited.
thereafter the appellant applied to the high companyrt of punjab for the issue of a writ of certiorari under art.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated numberember 27 1959 of the punjab high companyrt circuit bench at delhi in civil writ petition number 545 d of 1959.
the next question was whether the appellant was guilty of an offence of the nature described in s. 167 8 of the sea customs act.
in further support of his companyclusion that the appellant really intended to evade the prohibition imposed by the numberification of january 1952 by which the importation of single bolt belt fasteners was prohibited the companylector referred to the fact that these single bolt belt fasteners were companyposed of three companyponents 1 a bolt 2 a nut and 3 washers.
that is how the appeal is before us.
the collector recorded a finding that the appellant was guilty of a companytravention of this provision which reads if any goods the importation or exportation of which is for the time being prohibited or restricted by or under chapter iv of this act be imported into or exported from india contrary to such prohibition or restriction or if any attempt be made so to import or export any such goods in reaching this finding the companylector was satisfied from the samples which were forwarded to the appellant and which were approved by him before finalising the indent that the appellant was really ordering and importing nuts and bolts which were identifiable companyponents of single bolt belt fasteners whose importation was prohibited.
this submission was rejected and appeal was dismissed.
226 of the constitution and this having been dismissed in limine moved this companyrt for special leave which was granted.
he also imposed a personal penalty of rs.
1000 on the appellant under s. 167 37 c of the sea customs act for misdescribing the goods in the bills of entries which he had filed.
the washers to fit into the bolts and nuts imported by the appellant were found to have been separately imported by a firm called nawanagar industries limited which was owned or companytrolled by close relations of the appellant.
the appellant showed cause and in the written pleas which he filed he raised two defences 1 that the description of the goods as stove and nuts was merely a description given by the manufacturers in their invoices and he himself number being acquainted with the technical details could number be held responsible for the description given in the invoices which was companyied in the bill of entry number being precise or exact and 2 that even if the bolts and nuts which he imported were identifiable parts of the single bolt belt fasteners whose importation was banned there had been on a proper companystruction of the import licence read in companyjunction with the import trade regulations under which it was issued numbercontravention since the ban on importation by the numberification was companyfined to a companyplete jackson type single bolt belt fastener and did number extend to the importation of the companyponent parts of such a belt fastener.
purshottam trikamdas m. v. goswami and b. c. misra for the appellant.
these two defences were examined by the companylector of central excise.
the cases were described in the bills of entry which he filed as stove bolts and nuts and he produced the import licence of numberember 1951 as his authority to clear the goods.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 318 of 1962.
march 6 1964.
their suspicions got companyfirmed after examination of the samples of the nuts and bolts imported and thereafter a numberice was issued to the appellant to show cause why he should number be proceeded against a for mis describing the goods as stove bolts and nuts and 2 for importing and attempting to import goods without a proper import licence this being an offence under s. 167 8 of the sea customs act.
5 1000 to redeem the companyfiscated goods.
s. barlingay and r. h. dhebar for the respondent.
as regards the first he found from the company repondence exchanged between the appellant and his foreign suppliers and produced by the appellant himself in his de fence at the hearing that the name stove bolts and nuts had been decided upon by the appellant himself after samples of the nuts and bolts which he desired to import had been received and examined by him.
one hundred and ninety two of these cases were cleared out of the port customs but before the rest of the 89 cases companyld be cleared the customs authorities got suspicious that the goods were mis described and though called stove bolts and nuts in the invoices and relative documents they were really identifiable parts of bolts and nuts of the jackson type single bolt oval platebelt fasteners whose importation had been prohibited by a numberification of the ministry of trade issued in january 1952.
the appellant obtained in numberember 1951 an import licence from the joint chief companytroller of imports at calcutta for importing iron and steel bolts nuts set screws machine screws and machine studs excluding bolts nuts and screws adapted for use on cycles.
the appellant filed an appeal to the central board of revenue which was dismissed.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ayyangar j. there are numbermerits in this appeal by special leave and it deserves to be dismissed.
in purported companyformity with this licence the appellant imported from japan through the bedi port 221 cases of bolts and nuts during the period april 4 1952 to july 14 1952.
