MANGLA BROTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner secured import licence dated May 12, 1981 for import of diamonds unset and uncut and which was endorsed for import of OGL items under Para 185 of the Import Policy 1982-83 subject to the conditions laid down. The import of beef tallow was canalised with effect from June 5, 1981 and from that date onward beef tallow could not be imported against the licence secured by the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners booked an order for importation of beef tallow in March 1983 and the Bill of lading was issued on April 8, 1983. The imported goods arrived at Bombay on May 3, 1983 and the petitioners filed bill of entry for home consumption. The petitioners realising that the customs authorities are likely to confiscate the imported goods on the ground that the import of beef tallow as not permissible, approached the customs authorities and requested to issue show cause notice. The petitioners waived service of show cause notice and the Assistant Collector by impugned order dated June 16, 1983 held that the import of beef tallow in pursuance of licence on which reliance was placed by the petitioners was not permissible. Consequently, the Assistant collector of Customs confiscated the goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act but gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 13,00,000 /- The order of the Collector is under challenge.

(3.) SHRI Paranjape, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in view of the endorsement made on the licence providing that the licence will be valid for import of ogl items under Para 185 of Import Policy 1982-83, the order of the Collector is not sustainable. It is impossible to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. The import of beef tallow was canalised with effect from June 5, 1981 and thereafter it was not open to import items by reference to endorsement on the licence. Indeed the contention of Sri Paranjape is not open for consideration in view of long line of decisions of the Supreme Court ending with one reported in 1986 (26) E. L. T. 465 (S. C.) = 1986 (9) ECR 1 (SC) ( Union of India v. Godrej soaps Ltd. ). Shri Paranjape made reference to the decision reported in 1992 (57) E. L. T. 684 (S. C.) = 1992 (38) ECR 481 (SC) (Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. M. Shashikant and Co.) but we are unable to appreciate how this decision advances the cause of the petitioners. In our judgment the impugned order passed by the Collector does not suffer from any infirmity and the petition must fail. Shri Paranjape finally submitted that the fine of Rs. 13,00,000/- is excessive and should be suitably reduced. It is not permissible to do so in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the petition must fail. It is open for the department to enforce the bank guarantee or recover the amount from the petitioners.