B ARUNKUMAR AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners No. 1 are a partnership firm carrying on business of importing rough uncut and unset diamonds, polishing the same and exporting the polished diamonds. The petitioners had obtained an Imprest Licence dated June 29, 1981 for value of Rs. 6,53,23,200/- from the Office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports for importing diamonds with the condition to re-export within a period of six months from the date of clearance of first consignment. On March 4, 1982, the petitioners entered into an irrevocable agreement with M/s Jain Sudh Vanaspati Limited, New Delhi to issue them letter of authority for authorising import of goods under non-debit scheme as per Para 183(V) of Import Policy of 1981-82. The letter of authority enabled M/s Jain Sudh Vanaspati Limited to import certain permissible goods for sale to actual users. On June 5, 1981, the import of tallow of any animal original was canalised vide public notice No. 29/81 and consequently the item of tallow of any animal original had been removed Appendix 10 of Import Policy Book for the year April 1981 to March 1982.

(2.) M/s. Jain Sudh Vanaspati Limited imported beef tallow and the Customs authorities did not permit clearance as it was not covered by the licence which M/s Jain Sudh Vanaspati Limited had secured from the petitioners. The goods were confiscated by the Customs authorities and thereafter were cleared on payment of certain amount as directed by the Customs authorities. On December 12, 1983, a criminal prosecution was launched agains M/s Jain Sudh Vanaspati Limited, its Directors and the petitioners in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi alleging commission of offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 of the imports and Exports (Control) Act. The accused were changed by the Delhi High Court in revisional proceedings came to the conclusion that none of the accused including the petitioners could be charge-sheeted and thereupon, the complaint was quashed. The complainant did not take any further steps to challenge the legality of the order of Delhi High Court. The order of discharge was passed on February 8, 1985.

(3.) On June 30, 1985, the respondent No. 2 served show cause notice on the petitioner alleging contravention of provisions of Clause 8(1)(f) and (g) of the Imports (Control) Order. The validity of show cause notice is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.