JAGANNATH AGARWALLA Vs. B N DUTTA
LAWS(CAL)-1960-5-26
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 19,1960

JAGANNATH AGARWALLA Appellant
VERSUS
B N Dutta Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The facts in this case are briefly as follows: On or about February 23, 1959 the Petitioner obtained a license for import of drugs and medicine as per Appendix XIX to the current Red Book. The current Red Book, is the import trade control policy of the Government of India for the licensing period October 1958 to March 1959. The licence related to items 87 and 109 of Part IV of the I.T.C. Schedule, valid up to August 31, 1959, and was granted under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. I have already stated that the license related to drugs and medicine as per Appendix XIX. This Appendix has the following heading: List of Drugs and Medicines and Pharmaceutical Chemicals falling under Section Nos. 87 and 109 of Part IV and Section No. 31(b) of Part v. for the import of which the licensing policy indicated below will be followed during October, 1958 March, 1959 licensing period.
(2.) In the license itself, Section Nos. 87 and 109 of Part IV are mentioned. Section No. 87 is "Drugs and Medicine containing spirit" Section No. 109 is "Drugs, Medicines, all sorts, not otherwise suecified in this Schedule". Section No. 131 is "Camphor" of which the importation for this period was totally prohibited. Appendix XIX contains several lists. One of the items in list I is "terpine and its derivatives excluding preparations thereof". The Petitioner proposed to import camphor B.P. stated to be a derivative of terpine, by virtue of the aforesaid licence. On or about May 16, 1959 a letter was sent to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, relating to this proposed importation by Messrs. Arun and Company, through whom the Petitioner was proposing to import the goods. Actually that letter has not been disclosed, but presumably it must have been an enquiry as to whether camphor B.P. stated to be a derivative of terpine, could he imported under the said licence. On June 5, 1959 the Assistant Controller of Imports wrote back in reply to say as follows: With reference to your letter No. 1(5/Ac/JCCI/59-60, dated 16-5-59, on the subject I am to inform you that since Camphor B.P. is stated to be a derivative of Terpine, your attention is invited to the Public Notice No. 2. ITC (PNJ/59, dated 9th January, 1959, as reproduced by this office Notice No. 3-JC.CI/59, dated 12-1-59 regarding import of "Terpine and its derivatives excluding preparations thereof" against Drugs and Medicine licenses for the period October, 1958 March, 1959 which is self-explanatory.
(3.) On June 8, 1959 Messrs. Arun and Company appears to have written another letter to the Assistant Drugs Controller on the same subject. This letter also has not been disclosed but, the answer of the Assistant Drugs Controller, dated June 12, 1959, has been disclosed. The letter states as follows: With reference to your letter No. 34/AC/ADC/59-60, dated June 8, 1959, I have to state that Camphor B.P. can be imported against the entry "Terpine and its "derivatives excluding preparations thereof" in List I of Appendix XIX against a licence for drugs and medicines. It may be borne in mind that only Camphor of B.P. U.S.P. or I.P. quality will be allowed under licence for Drugs and Medicines.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.