G A RANDERIAN LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging order dated August 27, 1983 passed by Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay directing confiscation of the goods in exercise of powers conferred under Section 111 (d) of the Customs act r/w Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Additional Collector gave an option to the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 2,25,000/- in lieu of confiscation and clear the goods. The petition raised three contentions (i) landing charges; (ii) advantage of exemption notification and (iii) whether the petitioners were entitled to import goods which were permissible under the policy for the year 1982-83.

(2.) SHRI Kantawalla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, very fairly stated that the first two issues viz. landing charges and availability of exemption notification stand concluded by decisions of this Court reported in 1987 (32) E. L. T. 262 (Ashok Traders v. Union of India) and 1992 (57) E. L. T. 221 (Bom ). (Ceat Tyers of India Ltd. v. Union of India)respectively. The learned counsel urged the third question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to take advantage of the Import and Export Policy for March 1982 to April 1983. Only few facts are required to be appreciate the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners had secured additional licence on January 21,1983 and in pursuance of this licence were entitled to import certain articles permitted by the Import and Export Policy for the year 1982-83. The petitioners opened letter of credit and registered a firm order. The policy of 1982-83 was to expire on March 31, 1983. The Government of India published a public notice on March 31, 1983 setting out that the import and export policy for the year 1983-84 will be announced on April 15, 1983. Relying on this fact, it was contended that the advantage of additional licence should be extended to April 15, 1983 and therefore the import effected by the petitioners should be regulated with the earlier policy of 1982-83. It is not possible to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. Shri Kantawalla very fairly submitted that neither the public notice any other notification and even the subsequent import policy for the year 1983-84 provides for automatic extension of time for import on additional licence for the period March 31, 1983 to April 15, 1983. In absence of any specific provision for automatic extension of licence it is not permissible for the petitioners to claim advantage of the earlier policy for the duration of April 1,1983 to April 15, 1983. In this view of the matter, the order of the Additional Collector cannot be disturbed and the petition must fail.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, rule is discharged but there will be no order as to costs. The amount deposited by the petitioners to be paid over to the department. Shri Kantawalla applies for continuation of stay restraining the respondents from recovering the amount from the petitioners. Stay refused. Amount to be recovered forthwith.