KHUNNOO LALL AND SONS Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under [Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business at Kanpur. It appears that in the year 1966-67 the Government of India launch ed a scheme for the import of spare parts of essential machinery and equipment from U. S. A. under U. S. Aid Non-Pro ject Loan. Consequently the Ministry of Commerce. Government of India issued a public notice No. 115 dated 11th August, 1966 setting out the conditions and pro cedure for obtaining licences for spare parts of machinery. Subsequently another public notice No. 117-ITC (PN)/66 dated 16th August, 1966 was issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India mentioning the articles which could be imported under the aforesaid scheme after taking out the necessary import licences. One of the items of which the import was permitted was "spare parts of refrigeration and air conditioning machinery other than, domestic refrige rators. In response to this notice the petitioner firm applied on 30th of July, 1966. to the fourth respondent, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Kanpur, for the grant of a lic ence to import "open type condensing units run by 1 H.P., 2 H.P.", 3 H.P., 4 H.P. and 5 H. P. without motor." This -application was granted on 12th December, 1966 and a licence dated 8th December. 1966 for Rs. 25,000.00 was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner then placed an order for the import of the aforesaid items with M/s. Sill Cox Refrigeration Corporation, U. S. A. which consigned the goods by a sea ship. When the shipment arrived at Bombay Port, the Clearing Agent of the petitioner was refused clearance of the consignment on the ground that the goods imported were not covered by the import licence issued to the petitioner and also that the value of the goods im ported exceeded Rs. 25,000.00. The De partment of Customs, Bombay, issued to the petitioner a notice under Section 112 of the Sea Customs Act requiring it to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated for the following reasons:

(2.) THE petitioner submitted a written explanation contending that the imported items were spare parts of refri gerator and air conditioning machinery and were not complete units inasmuch as in order to be complete units they would require addition of motors, there mistake switch, expansion wall capillary, cabinet and various other parts.

(3.) THE petitioner then received a letter from his counsel at Bombay that the Deputy Dock Manager, Bombay, had informed him that if the consignment was not cleared within a fortnight, the same shall be sold by public auction under Sections 64 and 64-A of the Bom bay Port Trust Act. It is at this stage that the petitioner filed the present writ petition and this Court while admitting the writ petition passed the following interim order on 19th July, 1972 a Issue notice. Until further orders the confiscated goods shall not be sold.