BIPINCHANDRA VRAJLAL GHELANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports granted import licence under import policy AM 81-82 on May 11, 1981. The C.I.F. value of licence was Rs. 20,310/- and the shipment was to be done within twelve months from the date of issue. The item to be imported was "Zip Fasteners" and as per the list annexed to the licence the Zip Fasteners could be imported for the face value of the licence. The petitioners got the licence transferred in their favour and placed an import order. The goods arrived in Bombay on January 7, 1982. The petitioners filed their bill of entry and the duty was assessed at Rs. 38,478.26/-. The petitioners were willing to pay the duty and they were willing to have the goods cleared from the Customs. But at that stage the Customs authorities refused clearance. The petitioners wrote a letter dated January 22, 1982 to the Assistant Collector of Customs seeking justice and asking him to release the goods. However, the Customs authorities would not agree, therefore, the petitioners had to file this writ petition on January 25, 1982 and obtained an interim relief whereby on payment of duty they were given the goods. This was done under interim order dated January 27, 1982 and accordingly, the petitioners had to execute a bond of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the Collector of Customs, Bombay.

(2.) Mr. Talyarkhan, appearing for the petitioners, has produced before me a photo copy of the licence as obtained by the petitioners. The licence clearly shows that there was no limit to the import and Zip Fasteners could be imported for the face value of the licence. The list attached contains the necessary information clearly. However, according to the respondents, there was some mistake in stencilling the petitioners' licence. It is the contention of the respondents that the import of Zip Fasteners was not to exceed 5% of the face value of the licence as per the import policy of AM 81-82.

(3.) Mr. Talyarkhan has submitted that when the licence was issued to the petitioners, it did not contain any such restriction even after the goods were imported and the bill of entry was filed and the duty was assessed. The petitioners were not informed of any such restriction. It is only after the petition was filed and the respondents chose to file their affidavit-in-reply as late as on July 31, 1987 and the petitioners were informed that there was such a policy which restricted the import of Zip Fasteners to the extent of 5% of the face value of the licence. There is a letter dated May 25, 1982 addressed to the Assistant Collector of Customs by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, and the said letter has been annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. In my view, this letter is of no consequence. The question is whether the respondents could have refused clearance of the goods imported by the petitioners as per the licence. The petitioners have not violated any of the terms and conditions of the licence. They have also not imported any item which is said to have been banned. If there is a term and condition of policy the policy cannot have the force of law and, therefore, the Customs authorities could not have restrained the petitioners from clearing the goods.