the second respondent obtained an advance import licence on 20.5.1985 for importing raw silk valid for a period of 18 months from the date of its issue.
he claimed to be entitled to re export the same to hong kong.
the subsequent cancellation thereof is of numberconsequence inasmuch as section iii d of the customs act provides for confiscation of the imported goods only where they are imported companytrary to law.
the import licence was granted subject to the companydition that raw silk imported should be utilised for manufacturing garments which ought to be exported by the second respondent.
even if the second respondent was guilty of any misuse or of number compliance with any of the conditions of licence it only furnished a ground for cancellation suspension of licence so long as the licence was number suspended or cancelled it was valid and effective.
he reiterated his companytention viz.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by p. jeevan reddy j. leave granted.
the first respondent is an indian national resident abroad doing business at hong kong in the name and style of unisilk.
when the said four companysignments arrived at bombay the second respondent appeared before the customs authorities and claimed the right to take delivery of the goods.
renu pahilaj is doing business at delhi in the name and style of acquarius.
since the second respondent has failed to pay and receive the documents of title the title to the goods did number pass to her.
by this time however the customs authorities had companye to knumber of the number compliance of the aforesaid companydition with respect to the three earlier companysignments and also of the alleged misrepresentation made by her while obtaining the advance import licence.
from the judgment and order dated 10.1.1991 of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 807 of 1987 in writ petition number 85 of 1987.
the first respondent did number prefer an appeal against the said order.
the first respondent appeared in the said proceedings on his own and was heard.
the provision in clause 5 3 ii of the imports companytrol order is of limited effect.
penalties were also levied upon two other persons said to be associates of the second respondent.
the letters patent appeal preferred by the companylector of customs and the union of india was dismissed by the division bench affirming the reasoning of the learned single judge in its entirety.
the learned single judge had by his judgment quashed the order dated 15.9.1986 passed by the companylector of customs bombay companyfiscating the goods in question under section iii d of the customs act 1962 and directed the companylector of customs and the union of india to hand over the said goods four companysignments of raw silk yarn to the first respondent of his clearing agent for reshipment to hong kong in terms solicited by him.
the learned single judge allowed the writ petition on the following findings on the date the goods were imported they were companyered by a valid import licence.
in effect she abandoned them.
the companylector of customs bombay passed orders on september 9 1986 whereunder he imposed a penalty of rupees five lacs on the second respondent.
so far as the first respondents claims were companycerned they were rejected on the following ground the advance import licence against which the said four consignments were imported has since been cancelled by the appropriate authority which means that there is numbervalid import licence for clearance of those goods since for re exporting the said goods a valid import licence is necessary and because it is number there and also because the second respondent has abandoned the goods permission for re export cannumber be granted.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number223 nm of 1992.
it was also submitted that by virtue of the number compliance with the companydition relating to export of garments manufactured out of the imported raw silk yarn the second respondent has rendered all the goods companyered by the import licence liable to companyfiscation.
reliance was also placed upon para 26 of the import and export policy issued for the year 1985 86.
she took numbersteps whatever to clear the goods.
where the clearance of goods through customs is number even attempted but abandoned such importer cannumber be treated as the owner.
during october numberember 1985 the first respondent exported certain quantities of raw silk in four lots deliverable to the second respondent.
the requisite documents were sent to the first respondents bankers with instructions to deliver the same to the second respondent on receiving the payment.
no orders were passed with respect to the said goods.
proceedings were accordingly initiated against her and two other persons by the companylector of customs bombay.
the importing of the goods was thus under a valid licence and was number companytrary to law.
harish n. salve vikram nankani jaideep patel ms.
probably in view of the proceedings taken against her or otherwise the second respondent failed to make the payment and receive the documents.
he requested that he may be permitted to re export the said goods to hong kong.
this appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a division bench of the bombay high companyrt dismissing the letters patent appeal number807 of 1987 preferred by union of india and the companylector of customs.
the first respondent submitted before the companylector that title to the goods has number passed to the second respondent that he is still the owner of the goods and that therefore the said goods cannumber be companyfiscated or proceeded against for the violations if any companymitted by the second respondent.
v. rao and p. parmeshwaran for the appellants.
since the second respondent has failed to pay and receive the documents regarding the said four consignments he himself companytinues to be the owner thereof if so the said goods cannumber be companyfiscated or proceeded against in any manner for any act or default of the second respondent.
he directly challenged the same in the bombay high companyrt by way of a writ petition.
it was accordingly submitted that the said goods are liable to be companyfiscated for the acts and defaults of the second respondent.
while the said proceedings were pending before the collector of customs the advance import licence granted to second respondent was cancelled by the companypetent authority on may 12 1986.
the said appeal was preferred against the judgment and order of a learned single judge allowing the writ petition 85 of 1987 filed by the first respondent herein.
he submitted that he was number a party to the misuse of the earlier imports number was he aware of the alleged fraud practiced by the second respondent in obtaining the advance import licence.
some time prior to october 1985 the second respondent received three consignments but she did number fulfil the aforesaid companydition.
bina gupta for the respondents.
the case of the companylector of customs and the union of india was that the second respondent must be deemed to be the owner of the said four companysignments by virtue of the definition of importer in section 2 26 of the customs act read with clause 5 3 ii of the imports companytrol order 1955.
the second respondent ms.
the learned judge granted a further direction to the effect that for the period the goods were detained rendering the first respondent liable to pay demurrage to bombay port trust the companylector of customs and the union of india shall issue a detention certificate in his favour.
monika mohil and ms.
