# Daya v. Joint Gide/ Controller of Import.• and Exports

- **Citation:** [1964] 1 S.C.R. 830
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/daya-v-joint-gide-controller-of-import-and-exports-2816
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

1963
. 830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL .
ABDUL AZIZ AMINUDIN
!!.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
.. _ (S. J. IMAM, K. SUBBA R.Ao, R.AolllJllAR DAYAL,
and J. R. MunHOLKAR, JJ.)
lmporl and E:rport-Powera to prohibit or re.itrict import
and Export~Scope of-Licence to import goods issued aubject
to condition 110t to sell goods imported-Contravention of the
condition-Licensee, if liable to punishment-Import and
Export (Control) Act, 1947 (XVIII of 1947), 81. 3, 5-Importa·
(Control) Order, 1955, cl. 5, aub-cls. (2), (4).
The appellant as the Chairman of the Power loom Sadi
Manufacturer's Co-operative Association, obtained the licence
for the import of certain quantity of art silk yarn by the
Assxiation. The licence was issued subject to the condition
that the goods would be utilised only for consumption as raw
material or accessories in the licence-holders' factory and that
no portion thereof would be sold to any party. The Association could not arrange for the nece;;sary finances and therefore
had the goods imported through Warden & Co., who financed
the transaction. Part of the goods received was utilised in
accordance with the condition of the licence, the rest was how·
ever sold by Warden & Co., and the am•>urit was paid to the
Association by way of profits •. The appellant and the other
members of the Association were· prosecuted for committing the
oll'ence under s, 5 of the Imports· and Exports (Control)
Act,1947, for having contravened the Imports (Control) Order,
1955, but all of them were acquitted by the trial court. The
State appealed againt the acquittal of the appellant alone
which was 'allowed by the High Court and the appellant was
convicted and sentepced to three months' rigorous imprison•
ment alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/-•
. I
j
Held, that the power conferred under s. 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 consideration, to be adopted in
regard to the control of import of goods. The provision in
cl. 5 of the order empowering the licensing authority to attach
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
831
a condition to the effect that the goods covered hy the licence
shall not be disposed of except in the manner prescribed by
the licensing authority is a valid provision which comes within
the powen conferred by s. 3 of the Act on the Central Government.
State of Bambay v. F. N. Balsara, [1951] S.C.R. 682
and Glass Chaton,• Importera and Ua!rs' Association v. Union of
India, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 862, held inapplicable.
Daya v. Joint Gide/ Controller of Import.• and Exports,
[1963] 2 S.C.R. 73, referred to.
HeU, that in the present case the licence has been issued
under the Order of 1955. The language of sub-cl. (2) of cl. .5
of that Order is wide and permits the impositiou of a condition
which was outside sub-cl. (5) of cl. (a) of the Order of 1948.
Sub.cl. (4) of cl. 5 maKes it obligatory upon the licensee to
comply with all the conditions imposed or deemed to be impos·
ed under cl. 5. 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 effect the ordinary ri~hts of
the importer. The contravention of any c0ndition of a licence
thus amounts to the contravention of the provisions of sub-cl. 4
of cl. 5 of the Order and consequently to the contravention of
the order made under the Act and therefore the licensee makes
luelf liable to punishment under s. 5 of the Act.
Ea.t India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs, [1963]
3 S.C.R. 338 and C. T. A. Pillai v. H.P. Lohia, A.I.R. 1957
Cal. 83, held inapplicable.
H.Zd, that fvr contravenin~ the condition of the licence,
actual possession of the imported
~ood.'1 is not necessary.
Fu,·ther, the possession of Warden & Co , wouJd be possession
of the Association,

## Text

1963
. 830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL .
ABDUL AZIZ AMINUDIN
!!.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
.. _ (S. J. IMAM, K. SUBBA R.Ao, R.AolllJllAR DAYAL,
and J. R. MunHOLKAR, JJ.)
lmporl and E:rport-Powera to prohibit or re.itrict import
and Export~Scope of-Licence to import goods issued aubject
to condition 110t to sell goods imported-Contravention of the
condition-Licensee, if liable to punishment-Import and
Export (Control) Act, 1947 (XVIII of 1947), 81. 3, 5-Importa·
(Control) Order, 1955, cl. 5, aub-cls. (2), (4).
The appellant as the Chairman of the Power loom Sadi
Manufacturer's Co-operative Association, obtained the licence
for the import of certain quantity of art silk yarn by the
Assxiation. The licence was issued subject to the condition
that the goods would be utilised only for consumption as raw
material or accessories in the licence-holders' factory and that
no portion thereof would be sold to any party. The Association could not arrange for the nece;;sary finances and therefore
had the goods imported through Warden & Co., who financed
the transaction. Part of the goods received was utilised in
accordance with the condition of the licence, the rest was how·
ever sold by Warden & Co., and the am•>urit was paid to the
Association by way of profits •. The appellant and the other
members of the Association were· prosecuted for committing the
oll'ence under s, 5 of the Imports· and Exports (Control)
Act,1947, for having contravened the Imports (Control) Order,
1955, but all of them were acquitted by the trial court. The
State appealed againt the acquittal of the appellant alone
which was 'allowed by the High Court and the appellant was
convicted and sentepced to three months' rigorous imprison•
ment alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/-•
. I
j
Held, that the power conferred under s. 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 consideration, to be adopted in
regard to the control of import of goods. The provision in
cl. 5 of the order empowering the licensing authority to attach
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
831
a condition to the effect that the goods covered hy the licence
shall not be disposed of except in the manner prescribed by
the licensing authority is a valid provision which comes within
the powen conferred by s. 3 of the Act on the Central Government.
State of Bambay v. F. N. Balsara, [1951] S.C.R. 682
and Glass Chaton,• Importera and Ua!rs' Association v. Union of
India, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 862, held inapplicable.
Daya v. Joint Gide/ Controller of Import.• and Exports,
[1963] 2 S.C.R. 73, referred to.
HeU, that in the present case the licence has been issued
under the Order of 1955. The language of sub-cl. (2) of cl. .5
of that Order is wide and permits the impositiou of a condition
which was outside sub-cl. (5) of cl. (a) of the Order of 1948.
Sub.cl. (4) of cl. 5 maKes it obligatory upon the licensee to
comply with all the conditions imposed or deemed to be impos·
ed under cl. 5. 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 effect the ordinary ri~hts of
the importer. The contravention of any c0ndition of a licence
thus amounts to the contravention of the provisions of sub-cl. 4
of cl. 5 of the Order and consequently to the contravention of
the order made under the Act and therefore the licensee makes
luelf liable to punishment under s. 5 of the Act.
Ea.t India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs, [1963]
3 S.C.R. 338 and C. T. A. Pillai v. H.P. Lohia, A.I.R. 1957
Cal. 83, held inapplicable.
H.Zd, that fvr contravenin~ the condition of the licence,
actual possession of the imported
~ood.'1 is not necessary.
Fu,·ther, the possession of Warden & Co , wouJd be possession
of the Association, as the former was its agent to import the
goods.
Held, further that the appellant aided intentionally the
Association in dispo•in~ of the goods through Warden & Co.,
and therefore abetted the contravention of the condition of the
licence. The case appears to be deliberate case of securing
import licence with a view to mis-apply the goods imported
and therefore, the sentence of three months' rigorrius imprison.
ment and fine of Rs. 2000/- is not severe.
CRIMCNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimiual
Appeal No. 168 of 1961.
1963
.Abdul A..:iz .Aminudin
v.
Stat1 of Maha1a.shtr•
1963
AUorl Mi< Aminudin
v.
W. ef Moiaarasbtr•.
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order da•ed August 3, 1951, of the Bombay
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1961.
Shaukat Husain and P. C. Agarwala, for the
Appellant.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India,
D. R. Prem and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
1963.
February 7.
The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
Rogh•hrD9oJ, J,
RAOHUBAR DAYAL, .J.-This appeal, by special
leave, is against the order of the High Court of
Bombay allowing the State appeal and convicting
the appellant of the offence under s. 5 of the Imports
and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, hereinafter called
the Act, for having contravened the Imports (Control)
Order, l9ii5,
herein~fter called the Order, and
sentencing him to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- .
The appellant was the Chairman of the
Malegaon
Power loom
Sadi
Manufacturer's
Cooperative As<ociatinn Ltd.. hereinafter callrd the
As<ociation. There were six other members of the
Association.
All the
members were powerloom
weavers.
The
appellant,
as Chairman of the
Association, applied for and obtained the licence
dated Janu~ry 2, 1956, for the import of certain
quantity of art silk yam by the Association. The
licence was issued subject to the condition that the
good< would be utilised only for consumption as raw
material or accessories in the licence-holders' factory
and that no portion thereof would be sold to any
party. The As.~ociation could not arrange for the
necessary finances and therrfore had the goods
imported through Warden & Co., who financed the
transaction. Part of the goods received was utilised
l.S.C.R.
SUPRI::ME COURT ~PORTS 833
in accordancewit,h,the.,condition of the licence,-the
rest wa~ however soJd _by the S'fid W:i,r;den & Co., as
a result of .the corresporn;lence ending by a letter
daled
No,·em ber 13, 1956, from the appi:llant as
8hairman of the Association to Warden & Co.
The
relevant portipn .of this letter is:
'·
-.
t
•
"l,n this connection ~e.have to inform you thiit
as the price of Art.silk yarn has fallen greatly it
is not p'ossil;>le for our
~ss.ociatio,n. to take
delivery pf the balance ·gqods.
As such, you
are therefore requested to ,dispose o( the balance
goods lying with you in :Such manner that our
Association suffers no loss whatsoever, but gets
~net profit. of at leas\ 4!o on these good~."
After the disposal of the go ids Warden & Co., did
pay to the Association a sum, q( Rs. 5,040/ · by way
of profits of the Association.
•
'
The appellant and· th.e other members of the
Association were prosecuted for committing the offence·
under s. 5 of the Act.
They were acquitted by the
trial Court.
'fhe State
appealed
against the
acquittal of the ·app~.Jlant aloqe ... The appeal was
allowed,
with the result that the appellant was
convicted of the.-0ffenc,e under s. 5 ,of the Act.
He
has come up iu 'app~l,
Tb.e various contmtions raised for the appellant
are :
( i) T~ Act was intended for the pm;pose of
prohibiting or controlling imports and exports which,
according to s. 2 thereof, meant respectively bringing
goods into and taking out of India by sea, land or
air, and therefore any provision in. the
Order
providing for the issue of a licence, tq import goods
subject to-the cordition that the goods covered by the
licence be not di~posed of except in the manner
prescribed by the li(:ensing au\hority could not be
validly made in the e.xer,cise of the powers conferred
lf6'J
.Ab®' .Aziz, Aloin..ito
v.
SUJt1 of MolaM~ltks.
Rot,.,., /Jlfll'l, / •.
1963
AblrJ Atit Aminudin
v.
St.ii of Mi.h'lTarhtra
R.i~bor DoJal, J.
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
on the Central Government under s. 3 of the Act, as
such a co.1dition deals with the conduct of the licensee
subsequent to the import of the goods.
(ii) The
Order does not provide for the imposition of the
condition in the licence that the lic1·nsee is not to
sell the imported goods.
(iii) The contravention of
any condition of the licence docs not amount to a
contravention of the provisions of the Act or an
Order made thereunder and
therefore
is
not
punishable under s. 5 of 1he Act. (iv) The Association
was the licensee and therefore any contravention of
the condition of the licence would be committed by'
the Association and not bv its Chairman and consequently it would be the. ,\ssociation which should
have been tried for thr. alleged offence under s. 6 of
the Act and not the Chairman.
(v) The possession
of the goods had not pa5sed to the Association and
therefcre the Association could not be guilty of the
offence.
(vi) The appellant has Wl nuens 1·ea to
commit the offence and therefore could not be l(Uilty
of the offence.
(vii) Lastly, the sentence is severe.
The relevant provisions of the Act and the
Order to which reference is necessary may now be
quoted. The preamble of the Act reads :
"An act to continue for a limited period powers
to prohibit or control imports and exports.
Wl-.ereas it jg expedient to con ti nu~ for a limited
period, ·powers to prohibit, restrict or otherwise
control imports and exports."
Section 2 says that in the Act, 'import' and 'export'
means respectively bringing into and taking out of
India by sea, land or air. Section 3 empowers t!le
Central Government, by order published in the
Official Gazette, to make provi~ions for prohibiting,
restricting or otherwise controllin~. in all case.s or in
specified classes of cases, and subject to such exceptions
l S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
835
if any, as may be made by or under. the order, the
import and export of goods
of any
specified
description. Section I\, the penalty section, provided,
at the relevant time, that if any person contravened
or attempted to contravene or abetted a contravention
of any order made or deemed to have been made
under the Act, he would be
punishable
with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year, or with fine or with both. The section was
amended in 1!160 and as a result of the amendment the
contravening of any conditie>n of the licence granted
under the Order, was also made punishable. The
amended provision, however, is not applicable to the
present case.
Clause 5 of the Order deals with the conditions
of licence.
Its relevant provisions read :
"(l) The licensing authority issuing a licence
under this order may issue the same subject to
one or more of the conditions stated below :-
(i) that the goodg covered by the licence shall
not be disposed of, except in the manner prescribed by the licensiug authority, or otherwise
dealt with, without the written permission of
the licensing authority or any person duly
authorised by it;
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
(2) A licence granted under this order may
contain such other conditions, not inconsistent
with the Act or this order, as the licensing
authority may deem fit.
x·
x
x
x
x
x
x
( 4) The licensee shall comply with all conditions imposed or deemed to be imposed under
this clause."
1963
A.bdul ll!i.t A.minudin
••
State of M""'-rashtra
R,,zhu•"' DaJal, J.
1963
AbtL.l Azit Amin&1tli4
..
bhdt of Maharashtra
Raghuhar Da,al, J.
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] VOL.
In support of the contention that the power
conferred on the Central Government for making
provisions for prohibiting-, restricting or otherwise
controlling import of goods can be exercised only
with respect to the actual rntry of the goods into the
territory of India and not with respect to the control
of the imported goods subsequent to their being
brought into the territory, reference was made to the
case teported as 'l'he State of Bombay v. P. N.
Ba/.~ara (').
That case dealt with a different matter.
It related to the powers under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
The contention
was that the
Provincial Legislature could not make a law regarding production, manufacture, possession. transport,
purchase and sale of intoxicating liquor in the exercise of the pmvers under Entry 31 of List II, Scvrnth
Schedule to the Governmer.t of India Act, 193.5, as
the word 'import' used in Entry I Hof List I of the
same Schedule did not end with ml're landing of the
goods on the shore or their arrival in the customs
house but did imply that the imported goods must
reach the hands of the imrorter and he s 10uld be
able to possess
t~em. It was argued that the
impugned Act dealt with import of goods an<l therefore encroached upon the legislative powers of the
Central Legislature. It was in this context and in
view of the principles apphcablc to the construing of
the provisions laying down the
legisl~tive limits of
different legislatures that it was said at p. 700 .
"Under the provisions of the Government of
India Act; a limited meaning must be given to
the word 'import' in entry 19 of List I in order
to give effect to th" very general words use<l in
entry 31 of List I I."
This observation cannot be applicable to the interpretation of the content of the words 'import' and
'export' in the Act in the present case.
In Glass Cha tons Importers & Usa8' Associatilm v. Union of India ('), it was contended that s. 3
(I) (1951] S.C.R. E82.
t2) (1961) I S.C.R. 862.
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
837
of the Act, insofar as it permitted the Central Government to make the order contemplated by sub cl. {h)
of cl. 6 of the order which provides for the refusal to
grant a licence if the licensing authority decided to
canalize imports and the distribution thereof through
special or specialized ageqcies or
channels, was
invalid. The contention was repelled, it being held
that such a restriction on the right to carry on trade
and to acquire property was not unreasonable. The
point urged before us was not argued in that case,
but the case dealt with the provision in the order
relating to the distribution of the imported goods
through selected agencies, a stage subsequent to the
actual import of goods and the Court held that
provision good.
In Daya v. Joint Chief Controller of Imports
and Exports (1), it was held that the provisions contained in cl. 6 (h) of the order, empowering the Chief
Controller of Imports and Exports to refuse a licence
if the licensing authority had decided to canalize
imports and distribution thereof through a special
channel or agency, could be made in the exercise of
the power conferred on
the Central Government
under s. 3 of the Act.
It is clear therefore that the power conferred
under s. 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 !n 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
\IJ [1963J 2 s.c.R. 73.
1963
Abdul 4.:dz Aminudi11
..
State qi M oharashtra
Ragh!fbar Dayal, J.
AMiii kh Am""'4i>i
v.
Stat1 of MoM.ashlro
838
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[I964]VOL.
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 conuol 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 Cent•al 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.
We are therefore of opinion that the provision
in cl. 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 s. 3 of the Act on the Central
Government ..
In support of the second contention that the
Order docs not provide for imposing the condition
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
839
that the imported goods· be ncit sold, reliance is placed
on the decision in East India Commercial Co. v.
Collector of Customs (• ). In that case, a condition was
imposed in the licence prohibiting the importer from
selling the imported goods. Sub-cl. (1) of cl. (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 authorily or any person
duly authorised. Sub-cl. (v) of cl. (a) of the Noti·
fication 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-cl. (1) of cl. (a) and was sought to be supported by relying on sub-cl. (v), This Court held
that under that clause
a licensing authority was
competent to impose only such condition as may be
expedient from the admini5trative 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-cl. (2) of cl. 5 of that Order is
wide and permits the imposition of a condition which
was outside sub-cl. (v) of cl. (a) of the order of 1948.
Sub-cl. ( 4) of cl. 5 further makes it obligatory upon
the licensee to comply with all the conditions imposed or deemed to be imposed under cl. 5. We
therefore do not agree with the second contention
and hold that the licensing authority is cempetent
under the Order to impo11e the condition that the
( 1 l c 196JJ s s.c.R. 338,
1963
Abdul A!k A.minudin
v.
State of Maharashtra
Rai:hubor D•7al, J.
1903
ii.lulu/ A"iz Am;nudin
...
Sta11 OJ MahtJrq.shlra_
Rozhu6ar Da.Jal, J.
"-'
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
·imported goods be not ~old to any per'son and thus
to affec~ the ordinary rights'. of the impo'rter.
_
The third. contention too has no force.
Subcl. (4) ·of<;!. 5, provides that
the licensee
sh<tll
comply with all conditions imposed or deemed to be
imposed under that clause.
:rhe .contravention of
any condition or a licence thus <1mbunts:to the.contravention of the_ provisions.of s,ub-cl. '(4) of cl. 5 of the
Order-and ccinsequeritly to ;the
c<~otravention of the
.Order ,made under: the A'ct. Jt follows that if the
Association, the licensee, does not comply with the
conditions of -the licence about use of the' good~· to
0e imported, it,;;Qntrav.~nes tl)e Order made under
the Act -and makes itself liable to punishment
under s. 5 of the Act.
"
The cases reported a1i C. T. A. Pillai'v. H.P.
Lakia (1), and East India Vommercial Co. v. CollecJ;orof Customs
('), holding that the infringement of a
condition in tl,ie licence nbt to ,sell goods imported
to. third parties is not an infringement of the Order,
are n'ot of help as they deal with the contrave;ition
of the conditions of the licence grant_ed under orders
dated July 1, 1943 ancf .N:arch 6, 1!!48 which did
not:· contain a
provision comparable
with the
_provisions of sub-cl. (4) ofcl. 5 of !he Order of 1955.
W!! 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 th~ fifth contention
that it could not be guilt5' of the offence as it had not
got actual possession of tpe imported goods. ·For
contravening the condition of the licence,
ac~ual
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.
Re : the sixth poinf' that tlie appellant had no
intention to commit the offence, the finding of the
(I) A.I.R. 1957 Cal. 83.
(2) [1963] 3 8.C.R. 338.
l S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
841
High Court is against the appellant. The High
C:ourt rigntly held him guilty of the offeμce under
s. 5 of the Act on a finding that he intentionally
aided· the Association, the licensee, in committing
the offence under s. 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
eff~ct that the good~
imported would be utilised by the licensee alone and
would not be sold to any other party.
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.
We therefore dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
1963
.Abdul Adz Arninudin
v.
Stat1 of MaharOJhlr•
Roihubor DaJtd, J,