SUNITA PLASTIC INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner No. 1 which is a partnership firm and petitioner No. 2 who is one of the partner are challenging legality of order dated February 25, 1991 passed by Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports directing that the partne.-ship firm and the partners (1) Pradeep Ravani, (2) Smt. U.L. Ravani, (3) Smt. P.M. Ravani and (4) A.L. Ravani should not be granted any import licenses--CCPs--obtaining allotment of imported goods from any canalising agencies and/or from importing any goods from February 6, 1991 to March 31, 1993 up to 50% of their entitlement. A fiscal penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- was also imposed on the firm and the partners. After perusing the petition and the order, we are, prima facie, of the opinion that the firm and its partners are guilty of committing contempt of the Supreme Court and have also committed criminal offences and are liable to prosecution. Before we proceed to take any action against the firm and its partners, it is necessary to issue notices to them to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act and direction to prosecute them should not be issued. The reasons for issuing notices are as follows:

(2.) M/s. Prakash Conductors, Bangalore, had obtained Replenishment Licence dated July 4,1984 for value of Rs. 12,69,8767 for import of Aluminium/Aluminium Rods from the Office of Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, Bangalore. The licence was transferable and initially it was transferred to M/s. Vina Commercial Corporation and subsequently on May 18, 1985 M/s. Vina Commercial Corporation transferred part of the licence to petitioner No. 1 firm for Rs. 9.30.000/-. The petitioner firm thereupon opened an Indent on May 28, 1985 and imported 72 MTs of Butyle (sic) Acrylate for the full value of licence. The bill of entries for clearance was filed some time in June 1985 but the goods were not allowed to be cleared by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The partnership firm thereupon filed Writ Petition No. 11773 of 1985 in the Supreme Court against Union of India, Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Joint Chief Controller, Bangalore and Collector of Customs, Bombay seeking that directions should be issued to the Collector of Customs, Bombay for clearance of the imported goods. The partnership firm and the partners declared in the Petition that they were the actual users of Butyle Acrylate and were registered with the Directorate of Industries, Bombay for manufacture of plastic moulded articles and plastic imitation jewellery on September 21, 1976. On the strength of the claim made by the petitioners, the Supreme Court by order dated August 16,1985 directed to release the goods imported by the petitioners on payment of duty but specifically observed:

(3.) On realisation that the petitioner had played fraud and had made mockery of the order passed by the Supreme Court, notice dated January 10, 1990 under Section 4-L of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 was issued to the firm to show cause why action should not be taken against the firm and the partners and fiscal penalty shall not be imposed. The firm and the partners sent a reply claiming that it is not possible to file a detailed reply in view of the fact that the documents have been seized by C.B.I. The Additional Controller of Imports and Exports was not impressed by this claim and the impugned order states that even if the documents were with the C.B.I., nothing prevented the firm and the partners to obtain copies of the documents for filing reply and making submission. As the firm and the partners did not bother to assist and defend the proceedings, the impugned order came to be passed and which is under challenge in this petition.