Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)Bharat Barrel And Drum Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. vs The Collector Of Customs, Bombay And ... on 6 January, 1971
This precedent was followed in a number of other cases relied upon by Mr. Patel and these are reported at 1984 (16) ELT 497, 1986 (26) ELT 962, 1985 (21) ELT 400 (Bombay), 1987 (30) ELT 134 (Bombay), and 1978 ELT (J) 375. Mr. Lokur for the respondents counters the submissions made by Mr. Patel with the decision . But in that case what was in issue was a specific ban upon importability of certain commodities pursuant to an exercise of legislative power and not administrative power as is the position prevailing in the instant case. Therefore, Rajprakash cannot be said to go counter to the authorities relied upon by Mr. Patel. Mr. Lokur contends that a statutory instrument does not cease to be such an instrument merely because the source of power has not been correctly set out therein. It is the words employed which have to be taken into consideration, coupled of course with the right of the authority to exercise the powers, whether the power being exercised is statutory in nature or administrative in character. Attractive as this argument is, the manner in which the power is exercised or expressed to be exercised is an important indicia of what the authority is purporting to do. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports can on behalf of the Central Government issue statutory instruments flowing from the power conferred by section 3 of the Act though he does so, for, and on behalf, of the Central Government. Similarly the Chief Controller has the authority to issue Trade or public Notice and the Objects of such notices is to make known the policy to the importers and exporters. The publication of notices for the Information of the general public is something in the nature of an exercise in public relations without any statutory consequences flowing therefrom. On the other hand, notifications in exercise of statutory powers have consequences in law affecting the rights and obligations of citizens. Therefore, irrespective of the suspicion said to surround the date of placement of the order by the petitioner and the finalisation of the L/C, the lead right of the petitioner to import the commodity under the Import Licence was not affected. The importations was valid and so it has to be declared. In regard to the petitioner's claim for a detention certificate, the same will have to be issued by the 1st respondent, for the detention of the goods was on account of any legal fault or lapse on the part of the petitioner. Mr. Lokur contends that in respect of the petitioner's entitlement to get a detention certificate the International Airport Authority is a necessary party and its non-joinder disentitled the petitioner from getting such a certificate from respondent No. 1. I cannot agree. The detention of goods was at the instance of respondent No. 1 and he alone will have to issue the required detention certificate. Whether the International Airport Authority does or does not respect that certificate, remains to be seen and if the said authority considers that it is not bound by the said certificate, the petitioner has other remedies open to it. The International Airport Authority's joinder is not required to enable the petitioner to secure relief in terms of prayer (b).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
1