JAIN EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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 Chide 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 3came 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 :

(2.) The following common contentions have been advanced by learned counsel for the appellants :

(3.) The High court lias come to the correct conclusion that the terms of Import Policy of 1980-81 would apply to the facts of these cases.