Jain Exports Private LTD. vs Union Of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1988 Supreme(SC) 373

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. Pathak, CJI., Ranganath Mishra, J.
Jain Exports Private Limited
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 2705 , 5383 of 1985
Date of Decision : 5/5/88
Advocates Appeared: Atrey Abhisehk : Dutta Neerja : Iyer T.S.Krishnamurthy : Mukhopadhaya C. : Narain Sandeep : Nedumaran R. : Rao C.V.Subba : Rawal G.L. : Singhvi L.M. : Singhvi Manu : Srivastava R.P. : Vasudev Kailash

Advocates:
ABHISEKH ATERY, C.MUKHOPADHAYA, C.V.SUBBA RAO, G.L.RAVAL, KAILASH VASUDEV, L.M.SINGHVI, Manu Singhvi, NIRJA DUTTA, R.NEDUMARAN, R.P.Srivastava, SANDIP NARAYAN, T.S.KRISHNAMURTHY IYER

Headnote:
Customs Act - S. 111 – Constitution of India - Article 226 - Challenge this part of the order – Quasi judicial jurisdiction - Covered by statutory provisions - Similarly no support is available from the communication by way of reply received by the appellants from the STC to the effect that import of edible coconut oil alone was canalised through it. When the question before us is as to what exactly was the ambit of the entry no. 1 in paragraph 5 of Appendix 9, the letter of the STC has no light to throw and the matter has to be resolved with reference to broader aspects than the letter of the Corporation. Nor can that letter or the representation contained therein be used to build up a plea of estoppels - STC was not competent to bind the customs authorities in respect of their statutory functioning and if on actual interpretation it turns out that coconut oil covered what the appellants have imported, the fact situation cannot take a different turn on account of the letter of the STC – Held, THAT, however, does not assist the appellants at all. It may be that the Collector of Customs should have felt bound by the decision of the Board or the central government but the matter has passed that stage. What we are now concerned with is not disciplining the Collector in his quasi-judicial conduct but to ascertain what the correct position in the matter is. Very appropriately, appellants learned counsel has not found fault with the High court for not following the quasi-judicial opinion of the Board or the central government nor has he pleaded for acceptance of that by us as a precedent. Once on analysis we reach the conclusion that coconut oil of every description was covered in paragraph 5 of Appendix 9, the quasi-judicial decision ceases to be relevant. We propose to say no more on this aspect of the submission - What survives for consideration is the argument relating to the vice of breach of natural justice and the vice of collateral pressure of the import authorities in the making of the order. We must frankly state that this aspect of the argument has not at all impressed us. It has not been disputed that show cause notices were issued, cause was shown and considered by the statutory authorities. It may be that more of opportunities than extended were expected by the appellants in view of the fact that large stakes were in issue. The observance of the Rules of Natural Justice is not referable to the fatness of the stake but is essentially related to the demands of a given situation. The position here is covered by statutory provisions and it is well settled that Rules of Natural Justice do not supplant but supplement the law – Appeal dismissed

judgment

RANGANATH MISRA,J.

(1) THESE appeals by certificaye are directed against the common judgment of a full bench of the Delhi High court dated 20/12/1984, in two Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants are respectively a Company and its Managing Director. The Company was the holder of Letter of Authority in respect of three licences for import of coconut oil in one case and of two licences in the other and was appointed Letter of Authority Holder in respect of the said licences. It imported two consignments of 5342 . 369 Mts. and 3002 . 557 Mts. of refined industrial coconut oil from Sri Lanka and the delivery port was Kandla The respective ships carrying the aforesaid cargo arrived at the port of destination on 22/09/1982, and S 10/09/1982, and appellant 1 filed the bills of entry for release of the said cargo in the office of the Assistant Collector or Customs at Kandla. Instead of release of the cargo on the basis of steps taken by appellant 1, notices to show cause were received by appellant 1 on the allegation that import Of industrial coconut oil was not legal as it was a canalised item. Appellant 1 was called upon to show cause as to why the cargo may not be confiscated under S. 111(d) of the Customs Act as also why the appellants may not he penalised under S. 112 thereof. The appellants showed cause and look the stand that import of industrial coconut oil was not banned under the Import Policy of the government for the relevant period and the premises upon which the authorities had proceeded to direct issue of show cause was factually untenable. When personal hearing was afforded, on behalf of appellant 1 it was pointed out that the notices by respondent 3 were the outcome of bias and the said statutory authority had not applied his own mind to the matter in controversy. it was also printed out that Shri Takhat Ram, Joint Chid Controller of Imports and Exports had taken undue interest in the matter to the prejudice of the appellants and had brought to bear upon the statutory authority pressure to act against the interests of the appellants. By the adjudication orders dated 17/12/1982 and De 20/12/1982, respondent 3 came to the conclusion that "coconut oil, whether edible or not, were canalised items and fell within the ambit of Appendix 9 para 5(1 of the Import Policy of 1980-81. It was not an item under the OGL of 1980-81 Policy". Respondent 3 further held that neither of the consignments was covered by the import licences produced by the appellants and was, therefore, liable to be confiscated under S. 111 (d) of the Act but gave an option to appellant 1 to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 3 crores and Rs. 2 crores respectively as redemption fines. On 27/12/1982 two Writ Petition were filed in the High court of Delhi challenging the action of the Collector. The said Writ Petition were finally placed before a bench of three Judges of the High court ; two of them being Sachar and Khanna, JJ., came to hold that the Writ Petition were liable to be dismissed while the other judge being Wad, J. took the view that the action of the Collector was totally untenable and that the writ petition should be allowed and the order of the Collector should be set aside. The majority of the learned judges were of the further view that the quantum of redemption line should be considered by the Appellate tribunal. Sachar. .1. with whom Khanna, J. concurred, directed :

I would in the circumstances remit the matter to the Appellate tribunal but only on the question of consideration of the question of quantum of redemption fine. The Appellate tribunal could hear and dispose of this matter as if it was hearing an appeal filed by the petitioners but. only on the question of quantum of redemption fine.

In the absence of any challenge this part of the order of the High court has become final and has to operate irrespective of the fate of the two appeals.

(2) THE following common c