Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.V.Sehgal and - JJ.
Industrial Cables India Ltd
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ Petition No. 4441 of 1985,
Decided On : MARCH 4, 1986
IMPORT CONTROL ORDER - IMPORT OF BEEF TALLOW - VALIDITY OF ORDER - CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - SEC. 2(1), 2(33), 2(34), 17, 18, 19, 47 - IMPORT (CONTROL) ORDER, 1955 - CLAUSE 8(1)(F), 8(1)(G), 10(1) - IMPORT POLICY 1982-83 - PARAS 140, 141, 382 - IMPORT AND EXPORT POLICY - PARAS 382 - IMPORT AND EXPORT (CONTROL) ACT, 1947 - SEC. 3 - IMPORT LICENCE - TRANSFER - VALIDITY - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITIES UNDER CONTROL ORDER TO REVIEW CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES' CLEARANCE - SCOPE AND AMBIT OF R. E. P. LICENCES - IMPORT OF BEEF TALLOW - VALIDITY - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITIES UNDER CONTROL ORDER TO REVIEW CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES' CLEARANCE - SCOPE AND AMBIT OF R. E. P. LICENCES - IMPORT OF BEEF TALLOW - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Public Limited Company, and its Chairman and Managing Director, challenged the order of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports imposing a penalty of "debarment" for unauthorized import of beef tallow, an item canalised on 5.6.1981, in violation of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 (Control Order). The petitioners had obtained R. E. P. licences and appointed Letter of Authority holders to import various consignments of inedible beef tallow. The Customs authorities cleared the imports after examining the documents and assessing the duty. The petitioners also transferred one of the licences to another company. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports issued show-cause notices to the petitioners and the Letter of Authority holders alleging violation of the Control Order. The petitioners replied to the notices, but the Chief Controller passed an order imposing the penalty of "debarment" from importing any goods, receiving import licences, and allotment of imported goods through canalising agencies from 9.11.1983 to 31.3.1987.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the import of beef tallow was unauthorized and in contravention of the conditions of the licence and the provisions of Clause 8(1)(f) and (g) of the Control Order. However, the Court also held that the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports could not exercise the powers under Clause 8 of the Control Order to pass the impugned order in view of the clearance of the imported goods by the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court found that the clearance of the goods by the Customs authorities was under Section 47 of the Customs Act and the order permitting the clearance of the goods by the proper officer must be presumed to be after due adjudication.
Issues: 1. Whether the import of beef tallow was unauthorized and in contravention of the conditions of the licence and the provisions of Clause 8(1)(f) and (g) of the Control Order? 2. Whether the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports could exercise the powers under Clause 8 of the Control Order to pass the impugned order in view of the clearance of the imported goods by the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the import of beef tallow was unauthorized and in contravention of the conditions of the licence and the provisions of Clause 8(1)(f) and (g) of the Control Order, as it was an item canalised on 5.6.1981, and its import was restricted to the State Trading Corporation. 2. The Court held that the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports could not exercise the powers under Clause 8 of the Control Order to pass the impugned order in view of the clearance of the imported goods by the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court found that the clearance of the goods by the Customs authorities was under Section 47 of the Customs Act and the order permitting the clearance of the goods by the proper officer must be presumed to be after due adjudication. Therefore, the authorities under the Control Order could not review the matter and pass a contrary order.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports imposing the penalty of "debarment." There was no order as to costs.
D. V. Sehgal, J.
1. Petitioner No.1, a Public Limited Company, is carrying on business of manufacturing and export of power cables and petitioner No.2 is its Chairman and Managing Director. The petitioner-Company is stated to be entirely dependant upon imported materials to carry on its manufacturing activities. The major items which it manufactures are PILC Cables and for this 85% of the raw materials are imported. It is a recognised Export House since 1.3.1972. In accordance with the relevant import policies from time to time, being the holder of an Export House Certificate, it was issued several R. E. P. licences including Annexures P.7 to P.14 detailed hereunder : S. Licence No. and date Value of Date of registration No. licence of contract endorsed 1. P/w/2942585 17.9.81 22,13,397 27.10.80
P/w/2942510 4.9.81 30,19,955 27.10.80
P/w/0338565 5.2.82 33,92,500 25.7.80
P/w/2942776 1.12.82 25,18,542 25.7.80
P/w/0339077 31.3.82 45,23,700 25.7.80
P/w/0338567 5.2.82 7,26,600 25.7.80
P/l/0339179 27.5.82 58,91,900 27.10.80
P/w/0338643 1.3.82 41,48,000 25.7.80
2. . In terms of the relevant import policy as in force, it appointed Letter of Authority holders to operate upon the aforesaid Licences and import such goods as may be permissible. In accordance with para 382 of the Hand Book of Import and Export Procedure, the persons to whom it issued the Letters of Authority with details of the same are inter-alia the following : Name of L/a Holder Date of L/a Licence No. and Date M/s. H. R. Dass and Co. , Calcutta 26.2.82 P/w/2942585 17.9.81 - do - 26.2.82 P/w/2944510 4.9.81 M/s. Union Industries, Bombay 31.3.82 P/w/0338565 5.2.82 - do - 1.1.82 P/w/2942776 1.12.82 - do - 31.3.82 P/w/0338643 1.3.82 - do - 31.3.82 P/w/0339077 31.3.82 - do - 31.3.82 P/w/0338567 5.2.82 3. Since the petitioner-Company was also entitled to transfer the aforesaid licences to any person in accordance with the provisions of paras 140 and 141 of the Import. Policy 1982-83, it transferred Licence No. P/l/ 0339179 dated 27.5.1982 to M/s. General Foods (Private) Limited, Indore, on 12.5.1983.
3. . The Letters of Authority holders and the transferee in accordance with the established practice adopted by the Customs authorities and accepted by the Import Trade Control Authorities regarding the scope and ambit of the aforesaid R. E. P. licences imported various consignments of inedible beef tallow from time to time, which reached the ports and the Customs authorities in accordance with law examined the beef tallow and the relevant documents under which it was imported and after being satisfied that the aforesaid imports were legal unconditionally cleared the same after requiring the importers to pay the stipulated duty. No controversy was raised by either the Customs authorities or by the office of the Chief Controller, Imports and Exports, with regard to the said imports. Respondent No.2, however, later on issued show-cause notices dated 29.12.1983, 14.1.1985 and 31.1.1985 Annexures P.16, P.18 and P.2q respectively to the petitioners alleging that since the tallow of animal origin ceased to be an open general licence item (O. P. G. L. item) with effect from 5.6.1981, when its import was canalised and the State Trading Corporation alone was allowed to import it, import of this item by the Letter of Authority holders and the transferee of the Import Licence mentioned above was in violation of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 (hereinafter called the Control Order ). They were required to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them under Clause 8 of the Control Order. The petitioners furnished their reply to their respective show-cause notices vide letters dated 8.2.1984, 30.1.1985 and 12.2.1985, Annexures P.17, P.19 and P.21 respectively.
4. . After considering their replies respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.5.1985 Annexure P.22 concluded that the importation of the above item was unauthorised, in contravention of the conditions of the licence and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
