Case: Abdul Aziz Aminudin Vs. State Of Maharashtra

therefore of opinion that the provision in clause 5 of the Order empowering the licensing authority to attach a condition to the effect that the goods covered by the licence shall not be disposed of except in the manner prescribed by the licensing authority is a valid provision which comes within the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act on the Central Government.12. In support of the second contention that the Order does not provide for imposing the condition that the imported goods be not sold, reliance is placed on the decision in East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.) = (1963) 3 SCR 338. In that case, a condition was imposed in the licence prohibiting the importer from selling the imported goods. Sub-clause (1) of clause (a) of Notification No. 2/ITC/48, dated March 6, 1948, provided for imposing a condition in the licence to the effect that the importer shall not dispose of or otherwise deal with the goods without the written permission of the licensing authority or any person duly authorised. Sub-clause (v) of clause (a) of the Notification provided :"that such other conditions may be imposed which the licensing authority considers to be expedient from the administrative point of view and which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act."The actual condition imposed, however, did not fall under sub-clause (1) of clause (a) and was sought to be supported by relying on sub-clause (v). This Court held that under that clause a licensing authority was competent to impose only such condition as may be expedient from the administrative point of view. This Court further held that prohibiting an importer from disposing of the goods imported affects the rights of that person and therefore such a condition cannot be prescribed in the licence in the absence of a rule permitting that to be done. In the case before us, the licence has been issued under the Order of 1955. The language of sub-clause (2) of clause 5 of that order is wide and permits the imposition of a condition which was outside sub-clause (v) of clause (a) of the order of 1948. Sub-clause (4) of clause 5 further makes it obligatory upon the licensee to comply with all the conditions imposed or deemed to be imposed under clause 5. We therefore do not agree with the second contention and hold that the licensing authority is competent under the Order to impose the condition that the imported goods be not sold to any person and thus to affect the ordinary rights of the importer.13. The third contention too has no force. Sub-clause (4) of clause 5 provides that the licensee shall comply with all conditions imposed or deemed to be imposed under that clause. The contravention of any condition of a licence thus amounts to the contravention of the provisions of sub-clause (4) of clause 5 of the Order and consequently to the contravention of the Order made under the Act. It follows that if the Association, the licensee, does not comply with the conditions of the licence about use of the goods to be imported, it contravenes the Order made under the Act and makes itself liable to punishment under Section 5 of the Act.14. The cases reported as C. T. A. Pillai v. H. P. Lohia - AIR 1957 Cal. 83 and East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.) = (1963) 3 SCR 338 , holding that the infringement of a condition in the licence not to sell goods imported to third parties is not an infringement of the Order, are not of help as they deal with the contravention of the conditions of the licence granted under orders dated July 1, 1943 and March 6, 1948 which did not contain a provision comparable with the provisions of sub-clause (4) of clause 5 of the Order of 1955.15. We accept the fourth contention that it is the Association, the licensee, which alone could contravene the condition of the licence and thus contravene the Order, but do not agree with fifth contention that it could not be guilty of the offence as it had not got actual possession of the imported goods. For contravening the condition of the licence, actual possession of the imported goods is not necessary. Further, the possession of Warden & Co., would be possession of the Association, as the former was its agent to import the goods.16. Re the sixth point that the appellant had no intention to commit the offence, the finding of the High Court is against the appellant. The High Court rightly held him guilty of the offence under Section 5 of the Act on a finding that he intentionally aided the Association, the licensee, in committing the offence under Section 5 of the Act, and thus abetted the contravention of the offence by the Association. The appellant, as Chairman, authorised Warden & Co., to dispose of the goods which the Association did not want to utilise on account of the decline in price. He thus aided intentionally the Association in disposing of the goods through Warden & Co., and therefore abetted the contravention of the condition of the licence to the effect that the goods imported would be utilised by the licensee alone and would not be sold to any other party.17. We do not consider that the sentence is severe in the circumstances of the case which indicate that from the very beginning the appellant, as Chairman of the Association, knew that the Association would not be able to utilise all the yarn to be imported under the licence applied for. The fact that Warden & Co., did pay over Rs. 5, 000/- to the Association indicates that the goods did fetch a price higher than the price paid for their importation. The case appears to be a deliberate case of securing import licence with a view to mis-apply the goods imported.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]This observation cannot be applicable to the interpretation of the content of the words import and export in the Act in the present case.It is clear therefore that the power conferred under Section 3(1) of the Act is not restricted merely to prohibiting or restricting imports at the point of entry but extends also to controlling the subsequent disposal of the goods imported. It is for the appropriate authority and not for the Courts to consider the policy, which must depend on diverse considerations, to be adopted in regard to the control of import of goods. The import of goods can be controlled in several ways. If it is desired that goods of a particular kind should not enter the country at all, the import of those goods can be totally prohibited. In case total prohibition is not desired, the goods could be allowed to come into the country in limited quantities. That would necessitate empowering persons to import under licences certain fixed quantities of the goods. The quantity of goods to be imported will have to be determined on consideration of the necessity for having those goods in the country and that again, would depend on the use to be made of those goods. It follows therefore that the persons licensed to import goods up to a certain quantity should be amenable to the orders of the licensing authority with respect to the way in which those goods are to be utilised. If the licensing authority has no such power, its control over the import cannot be effective. It may have considered it necessary to have goods imported for a particular purpose. If it cannot control their utilisation for that purpose, the imported goods, after import, can be diverted to different uses, defeating thereby the very purpose for which the import was allowed and power had been conferred on the Central Government to control imports. It is therefore not possible to restrict the scope of the provision about the control of import to the stage of importing of the goods at the frontiers of the country. Their content is much wider and extends to every stage at which the Government feels it necessary to see that the imported goods are properly utilised for the purpose for which their import was considered necessary in the interests of the country.11. We are therefore of opinion that the provision in clause 5 of the Order empowering the licensing authority to attach a condition to the effect that the goods covered by the licence shall not be disposed of except in the manner prescribed by the licensing authority is a valid provision which comes within the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act on the Centralthe case before us, the licence has been issued under the Order of 1955. The language of sub-clause (2) of clause 5 of that order is wide and permits the imposition of a condition which was outside sub-clause (v) of clause (a) of the order of 1948. Sub-clause (4) of clause 5 further makes it obligatory upon the licensee to comply with all the conditions imposed or deemed to be imposed under clause 5. We therefore do not agree with the second contention and hold that the licensing authority is competent under the Order to impose the condition that the imported goods be not sold to any person and thus to affect the ordinary rights of the importer.13. The third contention too has no force. Sub-clause (4) of clause 5 provides that the licensee shall comply with all conditions imposed or deemed to be imposed under that clause. The contravention of any condition of a licence thus amounts to the contravention of the provisions of sub-clause (4) of clause 5 of the Order and consequently to the contravention of the Order made under the Act. It follows that if the Association, the licensee, does not comply with the conditions of the licence about use of the goods to be imported, it contravenes the Order made under the Act and makes itself liable to punishment under Section 5 of the Act.We accept the fourth contention that it is the Association, the licensee, which alone could contravene the condition of the licence and thus contravene the Order, but do not agree with fifth contention that it could not be guilty of the offence as it had not got actual possession of the imported goods. For contravening the condition of the licence, actual possession of the imported goods is not necessary. Further, the possession of Warden & Co., would be possession of the Association, as the former was its agent to import the goods.16. Re the sixth point that the appellant had no intention to commit the offence, the finding of the High Court is against the appellant. The High Court rightly held him guilty of the offence under Section 5 of the Act on a finding that he intentionally aided the Association, the licensee, in committing the offence under Section 5 of the Act, and thus abetted the contravention of the offence by the Association. The appellant, as Chairman, authorised Warden & Co., to dispose of the goods which the Association did not want to utilise on account of the decline in price. He thus aided intentionally the Association in disposing of the goods through Warden & Co., and therefore abetted the contravention of the condition of the licence to the effect that the goods imported would be utilised by the licensee alone and would not be sold to any other party.17. We do not consider that the sentence is severe in the circumstances of the case which indicate that from the very beginning the appellant, as Chairman of the Association, knew that the Association would not be able to utilise all the yarn to be imported under the licence applied for. The fact that Warden & Co., did pay over Rs. 5, 000/- to the Association indicates that the goods did fetch a price higher than the price paid for their importation. The case appears to be a deliberate case of securing import licence with a view to mis-apply the goods imported.