UNIVERSAL GENERICS PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging legality of show cause notice dated December 26, 1983 and corrigendum to show cause notice dated December, 26, 1983. The show cause notice was issued by the respondents calling upon the petitioners to explain why the consignment of Cod Liver Oil imported should not be confiscated, as the import was covered by Appendix 9 of Import Policy, 1984 and amended by public notice dated July 29, 1983.

(2.) THE petition was admitted by the learned Single Judge on January 25, 1984 with observation that import of Cod Liver Oil is not covered either by the canalising notification or by the ban notification. The learned Judge, by interim order, permitted the respondents to clear the import of Cod Liver Oil on completion of the requisite formalities. The learned Judge further permitted the respondents to complete the adjudication proceedings conducted in pursuance of show cause notice. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have cleared the consignment of import of Cod liver Oil. It is also not in dispute that the respondents, in spite of direction given by the learned judge to complete the adjudication proceedings, have not cared to do so for last about ten years. As the important goods are already cleared ten years before, the show cause notice seeking explanation of the petitioners as to why the imported goods should not be confiscated no longer survives for consideration. Shri Lokur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted that the respondents should be permitted to complete the adjudication proceedings at least for the purpose of determining whether the petitioners are liable to pay any penalty amount. We are not inclined to accede to the submission for more than one reason. In the first instance, the respondents have no explanation why the adjudication proceedings were not completed for ten years. Secondly, imposition of penalty, if at all, after a lapse of ten years is not just and fair. In these circumstances, in our judgment, to accede to the submission of the learned counsel that the respondents should be permitted to complete the adjudication proceedings cannot be accepted. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to relief.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a ). In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.