injecto P. Ltd. Vs. Controller of Aid Accounts

injecto P. Ltd. vs Controller of Aid Accounts

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 22, 1988

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/681246

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/681246
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: S.B. Wad, J.
Decided On: Mar 22, 1988
Case Number: C.W.P. 1639 of 1973
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 13: [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph,JJ] Custody of child - Welfare of child vis--vis comity of Courts - The minor girl child of 3 1/2 years was brought to India by her mother. The minor girl was a citizen of U.K. being born in U.K. her parents had set up their matrimonial home in U.K. and had acquired statu...

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

injecto P. Ltd.

Respondent

Controller of Aid Accounts

Legal References

Reported In: 1988(36)ELT430(Del)

Excerpt

.....of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the courts of two different countries in deciding the matter directed the wife to take the child of her own to u.k.or hand it over to father of husband to be taken to u.k. as measure of interim custody and that it would be for the u.k. court to decide the question of custody - order was challenged by wife - held, the order of high court was not liable to be interfered with. although, on first impression, it would appear that the interests of the minor child would best be served if she is allowed to remain with the wife, the order of u.k. court cannot be lost sight of., the order of u.k. court except for insisiting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the english court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the english court having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the u.k. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the u.k. english court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the u.k. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. the high court has taken into consideration both the questions relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of..........claim made by petitioners. the petitioners claimed that the goods were 'aid cargo' and, thereforee, the reply referred to them as an 'aid cargo'. however, the question whether the cargo in question was 'aid cargo' or not is to be decided in terms of the public notice dated 24th june, 1964 under which the petitioners got the license. for qualifying the goods to be called aid cargo the petitioners were required to furnish the suppliers certificate and invoice and contract abstract. this was necessary to ensure that the goods were of u.s. source and origin and were produced and manufactured in the u.s. the respondents have produced a telegram from indian embassy in washington stating that the invoice with the certificate of the supplier as required under the scheme was not filed by the petitioners along with the application. the record was produced by the respondents and a supplementary affidavit filed to state the correct position in this matter. it is thus clear that the petitioners did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the said public notice under which the license was given. thereforee, the goods imported by them cannot be described as 'aid cargo'. a general letter of the deputy director referring to the petitioners' goods as 'aid cargo' cannot, thereforee, be accepted as any admission by the respondents in the face of the evidence produced by them and particularly the telegram from the indian embassy in u.s. 4. for the reasons stated above there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. the rule is discharged. however, on the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

1. In 1964, the Ministry of Commerce (Government of India), Import Trade Control, New Delhi, issued a public notice inviting applications for licenses for import of machinery, components thereof, equipment, other commodities and raw materials from the U.S. under AID Loan 103. The license were to be valid for import goods having their source and origin in and procured from the United States. The goods were considered to be of U.S. source and origin, inter alia, if such goods were shipped from a U.S. port or from a free port or bonded warehouse, if shipped from said free port or bonded warehouse in the form in which received when shipped from U.S. port and if such goods were mined, grown a produced through manufacturing, processing or assembly in the U.S. It was necessary that the importer shall ensure that the U.S. Supplier attaches to or endorses on each invoice presented for payment a certification source and origin as in the form prescribed by the said public notice. The certificate was required to be signed by the supplier or his authorised representative. The invoice with the certificate so endorsed was to be submitted by the importer along with other documents mentioned in the said public notice. The importer was also required to stipulate in his contract a condition that the payment when due in accordance with the terms of the contract would be made only on the presentation to the bank concerned of all the documents mentioned in the public notice.

2. A license was issued to the petitioners against the said DLF Loan No. 103. The petitioners placed an order for supply of galvanised steel strips. The petitioners reimbursed to the State Bank of India U.S. Dollars 11640 on account of the shipment. The goods purchased by the petitioners were part of the cargo on s.s. Olga, which was seized at Karachi by Government of Pakistan in the conflict between India and Pakistan in 1965. The petitioners preferred a claim with the Custodian of Enemy Property, Bombay, claiming compensation for the loss along with the other importers similarly situate. The petitioners claimed that in the letter dated 2-9-1966 the Government of India clearly admitted that the petitioners' goods should be released being 'AID Cargo'. The petitioners did not receive the goods back nor the compensation. In 1968 the officer of the U.S. AID authorised the Government of India to utilise the funds provided by AID as compensation for the losses of 'AID-financed goods' incurred in 1965. The petitioners' contention in this petition is that their goods were 'Aid-financed goods' and they were, thereforee, entitled to claim compensation from the Government of India against the said AID Fund.

3. The submission of the respondents is that the assumption of the petitioners that their goods were 'AID-financed cargo' was incorrect. It was further submitted that the import becomes AID-financed (to be eligible to recommendation out of the lumpsum amount received from AID Authorities) only when the amount paid to the supplier for the import is reimbursed by AID Authorities with reference to a claim submitted by Government of India, duly supported by required documents to be furnished by the importer. As, of the documents, documents namely, supplier's certificate and invoice and contract abstract required for lodging reimbursement claim with U.S. were not made available by the importer, the Government of India could not obtain reimbursement from U.S. Aid. The cargo imported by the petitioners was thus not 'AID Financed'. The petitioners rely upon the letter of the 'Deputy Director (Export Promotion) dated 2-9-1966. In the said letter the Deputy Director had informed the petitioners that the information had been received 'that your AID cargo, particulars of which are given; in the enclosure to this letter, had been released by the Pakistan Government'. This letter so is apparently a letter in response to the claim made by petitioners. The petitioners claimed that the goods were 'AID cargo' and, thereforee, the reply referred to them as an 'AID cargo'. However, the question whether the cargo in question was 'AID cargo' or not is to be decided in terms of the Public notice dated 24th June, 1964 under which the petitioners got the license. For qualifying the goods to be called AID cargo the petitioners were required to furnish the suppliers certificate and invoice and contract abstract. This was necessary to ensure that the goods were of U.S. source and origin and were produced and manufactured in the U.S. The respondents have produced a telegram from Indian Embassy in Washington stating that the invoice with the certificate of the supplier as required under the scheme was not filed by the petitioners Along with the application. The record was produced by the respondents and a supplementary affidavit filed to state the correct position in this matter. It is thus clear that the petitioners did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the said public notice under which the license was given. thereforee, the goods imported by them cannot be described as 'AID cargo'. A general letter of the Deputy Director referring to the petitioners' goods as 'AID cargo' cannot, thereforee, be accepted as any admission by the respondents in the face of the evidence produced by them and particularly the telegram from the Indian Embassy in U.S.

4. For the reasons stated above there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. The rule is discharged. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1988 Same Parties injecto P. Ltd. vs Controller of Aid Accounts Same Subject Customs Same Judge S.B. Wad, J.

Customs