MARS EXPORTS Vs. SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS both writ petitions are connected, a common judgment is being rendered.

(2.) THE petitioner applied for import licence on 14-2-1981 the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (second respondent) issued the advance Licence subject to certain conditions, about which I shall refer a little later, on 22-5-1982. On the strength of the issuance of the advance licence, the petitioner was issued Duty Exemption entitlement Certificate on 22-5-1982. It is thereafter petitioner placed orders with Messrs Mathews (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. , for supply of 26 Metric Tonne of copper wire scrap valued at Rs. 4, 73, 747 THE cargo was loaded from Singapore on 12-8-1982, and the vessel carrying the cargo arrived at Madras Port on 19-8-1982. THE consignment was cleared on 19-10-1982. Out of 26 tonnes, 7. 980 tonnes were removed from the Port itself and sent to the manufacturers, and the remaining 18. 020 tonnes were warehoused with the Central Warehousing Corporation, tondiarpet. THE goods were pledged with the fourth respondent Bank for 80 per cent of their value. On 16-4-1983, petitioner exported 5 Metric Tonnes to singapore, on 17-4-1983 another 5 Metric Tonnes to Singapore and another 5 metric Tonnes were kept ready for export. On 22-2-1983, the petitioner was informed by Central Warehousing Corporation, with whom the goods were entrusted for safe custody, that the latter had received a letter from the third respondent not to release the goods. In the meanwhile, it may be stated at once that the petitioner had to comply with the advance licence conditions within six months from 19-10-1982, the date on which the consignment was cleared. This will point out that he shall complete the export commitments on or before 18-4-1983. As the petitioner could not obviously fulfil the export obligations, he applied on 29-3-1983 for extension. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to apply for extension, so too it is open to the second respondent who is the competent authority in this context to grant or refuse extension. In the instant case, the second respondent granted extension to the petitioner for fulfilling export obligations till 30-10-1983. In the meanwhile, even before the petitioner's application for extension was made and orders passed, the third respondent by his communication dated 26-4-1983, informed the petitioner that the period for export obligation was over, and therefore, directed the petitioner to produce the Export document and D. E. E. C. Book. Besides on 27-5-1983, the third respondent ordered forfeiture of the Bank guarantee and called upon the fourth respondent to remit Rs. 1, 11, 355. Immediately thereafter, on 28-5-1983, the petitioner apprised the third respondent (who passed the order of forfeiture) about the order of extension till 30-10-1983. It is an anomaly for in spite of it, on 27-6-1983, the third respondent issued a show cause notice for the cancellation of the licence and on 8-7-1983, the third respondent insisted on a revised bank guarantee. It is interesting to note that the second respondent by his Letter dated 1-7-1983, informed the petitioner that the petitioner is at liberty to clear the entire quantity from the Customs bonded warehouse under the D. E. E. C. duty free and manufacture the products and export the same by the said date. THE petitioner, in turn by his letter dated 11-7-1983, apprised the third respondent of the same and on 1-8-1983, he wrote to the Central Warehousing Corporation about the clearance permitted by the second respondent. Again on 6-8-1983, the third respondent persisted in giving specific direction to the Central Warehousing Corporation not to release the goods to the petitioner. It is in the above background, the petitioner has come forward with Writ Petition Nos. 8402 of 1983 for the issue of a writ of Mandamus to forbear the third respondent from interfering with the rights of the petitioner under licence No. P/k/0354893, dated 22-8-1982, till the date of fulfillment of export obligations, namely, 30-10-1983, or issue a writ direction or order in the nature of a writ of Mandamus as this court may deem fit and proper. In the other Writ Petition No. 6569 of 1984, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of certiorari or other writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the third respondent Herein No. 18 (524)82-83/eca/mad, dated 21-5-1984, I find the third respondent in Writ Petition No. 6569 of 1984, directed the Chief Manager, hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. , having a lien over the goods with the Central warehousing Corporation, Tondiarpet, to get the materials of 17 Metric Tonnes imported copper scrap released from the said warehouse after paying the warehousing and other incidental charges as on date and to sell the same to the four firms mentioned in the order.