B. N. Kirpal ( 1 ) THE appellate tribunal, sales tax, Delhi has referredto this Court the following three questions : "1. Whether on the facts; and in the circumstances of the casethe sale of the Printing Machine imported by the dealer fromgermany and sold to M/s. Union Printers Co-operative Society Ltd. for Rs. 2,39,908. 85 was a sale in the course of import within themeaning of Section 5 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?2. Whether on the. facts and in the circumstances of the casethe dealer acted as an agent of the purchasing dealer M/s, Unionprinters Co-operative Industrial Society Ltd. , New Delhi and madepurchases on behalf of the principal ?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe amount of Rs. 2,39,908. 85 can be included in the turnover ofthe dealer for purposes of levying sales tax under the Act ?"the facts, as found by the tribunal and narrated in the. statement offacts, are as under : "this appeal is directed against the order dated 4. 8. 1972passed by Shri R. K. Goswami, Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax,delhi in respect of the assessment year 1966-67. The dealer M/s. Printers House Private Ltd. , New Delhi is engaged in the businessof printing machinery and allied equipments. In the year underassessment he was charged sales at the rate of 5/o on the sale of Rs. 2,39,908. 85 which was alleged to have been made by the dealer infavour of the M/s. The Union Printers Co-operative Industrial Society Ltd. A penalty of Rs. 5000. 00 was also imposed for late filingof the return. The facts are not very much in dispute The importlicence for import of a printing press from Germany was originallygranted by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (C. C. I and E.),new Delhi to M/s. Photo Litho Press Pvt. Ltd. , Madras. The C. C. I. and E. issued a letter of authority authorising the dealer to importthe printing press on behalf of the licensee. On the strength of theletter of authority the dealer imported the printing press from Germany and the same landed in March, 1965, The licensee, however,failed to make the payment and take the delivery of the saidmachinery. The C. C. I. and E. , therefore, allotted the machinery tom/s. Bharat Litho Graphic Co. of Calcutta but that company alsodid not take the delivery. The C. C. I. and E. , therefore, allotted the machinery tom/s. Bharat Litho Graphic Co. of Calcutta but that company alsodid not take the delivery. The said machinery was, therefore, finallyreleased by the C. C. I. and E. in favour of the M/s. Union Printers Co-operative Industrial Society Ltd. , New Delhi to whom the machinerywas delivered on payment of Rs. 2,39,908. 85. According to thedealer he was only importer of the machinery oft the authority ofc. C. I. and E. and acted as an agent of the licensee. It was urged thatthe dealer had no property in goods as he could not sell the machinery to any one he liked and at any price he wished. It was assertedthat the dealer could not charge any price other than fixed by thec. C. I. and E. The import licence was granted to the licensee and ifhe did not take the delivery the goods could be delivered only toanother person on the instructions and advice of the C. C. I. and E. Itwas pleaded that the price was worked out by the C. C. I. and E. overwhich the dealer had no control. " ( 2 ) THE Sales Tax Tribunal came to the conclusion that the transactionin question amounted to a sale in the course of import and, therefore, wasexempt from tax. It took into consideration the fact the sales tax had beenrealised from the purchaser but this fact alone, according to the Tribunal,would not convert the transaction into sale otherwise than in course of import. From the assessment order, which is on record, it is clear that whenthe Chief Controller of Imports and Exports allowed M/s. Union Printersco-operative Industrial Society Ltd. to purchase the imported machinery, abill was raised by the dealer. It was in this context that sales tax@ 5% wascharged and realised. The question as to what is the sale in the course ofimport has been subject to a large number of decisinos of the Supreme Court. The two leading cases are that of K. G. Khosia and Co. (17 STC 473) andbinani Bros. (33 STC 254 ). The said decisions of the Supreme Court wereanalysed by us in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi v. M/s. The Gramophone Co. of India, S. T. C. No. 47 of 1978, decided on 23/08/1991. The two leading cases are that of K. G. Khosia and Co. (17 STC 473) andbinani Bros. (33 STC 254 ). The said decisions of the Supreme Court wereanalysed by us in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi v. M/s. The Gramophone Co. of India, S. T. C. No. 47 of 1978, decided on 23/08/1991. ( 3 ) IN that case also, the goods had been imported against the importlicence from abroad. The import licence had been issued in favour of All Indiaradio. The question still arose whether the sales made were in the course ofimport or not. It was held by this Court that in case of sale of goods in thecourse of import or export, there should be a privity of contract between theforeign party and the Indian importer or exporter. It was further held thatunless such a privity of contract takes place, there would be no sale in thecourse of export unless, of course, the sale takes place during the movementof goods from India to abroad or vice versa by transfer of documents of title. ( 4 ) IN the present case, the original licensee in whose favour theimport licence had been granted was M/s. Photo Litho Press Pvt. Ltdmadras. The original licensee did not take delivery of the imported goods. Thesecond company to whom the machine was allotted also did not take deliveryand ultimately it is M/s. Union Printers Co-operative Industrial Society Ltdwhich purchased the machine. As far as this purchase is concerned, there wasno privity of contract between this purchaser and the foreign exporter. Whenthe purchase was made, the goods had already reached India and the privity ofcontract was only between the dealer and M/s. Union Printers Co-operativeindustrial Society Ltd. which was the ultimate purchaser of the machinerythere were, therefore, two sales which were effected in the present case Onewas the sale by German manufacturer in favour of the dealer and the secondwas the sale by the dealer in favour of the ultimate purchaser, namely M/sunion Printers Co-operative Industrial Society. Ltd. The second sale cannot be regarded as a sale in the course of import. The sale was effected after thegoods had reached India and after the goods had been imported. The dealerhad rightly raised the bill and realised the sales-tax. Ltd. The second sale cannot be regarded as a sale in the course of import. The sale was effected after thegoods had reached India and after the goods had been imported. The dealerhad rightly raised the bill and realised the sales-tax. ( 5 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the questions of law mentioned aboveare answered in favour of the Commissioner of Sales-tax and against the dealer. ( 6 ) THERE will be no order as to costs.