APOLLO SEAFOODS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner firm was granted advance licence dated 24th March, 1992 under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme) whereby the firm was authorised to import 440 MTs. of Polythylene/polypropylene Moulder Powder/granules. The licence carried with it an export obligation both in terms of value and quantity viz. , Rs. 830 lakhs in terms of value and 1850 MTs. in terms of quantity. This licence was issued for a period of 9 months but its term was extended from time to time till 30th April, 1994. According to the petitioner, by the end of December 1993 it performed export obligations to the extent of 1950 MTs. in quantity with an approximate value of Rs. 670 lakhs and for a reduction in obligation in terms of value, an application was made to the Advance Licensing Committee. On 14th January, 1994, the office premises of the petitioner were raided by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Goa. Thereafter the factory premises were raided on 21st January, 1994 and during the raid of the factory premises certain documents listed in panchanama dated 28th January, 1994 were seized and taken away by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Goa. The Deputy General Manager was called to appear before the third respondent vide summons dated 17th January, 1994. Accordingly he appeared before the third respondent on 20th January, 1994. Between 20th January, 1994 to 16th March, 1994 the statements of the Deputy General Manager were recorded. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court in writ jurisdiction seeking directions to prohibit the respondents from proceeding further in the matter on the ground that the respondents had no jurisdiction to initiate action in the matter and it was only the Licensing Authority, namely, Controller of Imports and Exports, who had issued the licence, who was competent to initiate action, if any, under the said Scheme in the event the Licensing Authority came to the conclusion that the export obligations had not been fulfilled or for violation of any terms or undertakings on which the imports were permitted under the Advance Licence. Interim Order was granted in the matter on 7th April, 1994 in terms of prayer (b) restraining the respondents from proceeding further in the matter. No return has been filed by the respondents.

(2.) WE have heard learned Advocate Shri Nitin Sardessai on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri Rivonkar on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Shri Nitin Sardessai after placing reliance on the relevant provisions dealing with penal/follow-up action in respect of cases for advance licences has urged before us that if the licence holder fails to discharge the prescribed export obligation within the permitted time, the Licensing Authority can initiate action against the licence holder and that the respondents have no jurisdiction to initiate such inquiry though they may be able to take action for the recovery of customs duty or other duty under section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 after the Licensing Authority finds that the licence holder has failed to discharge the export obligation. In support of his submission reliance was placed on a Division Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court in (Union of India and others v. Oceanic Export Corporation), Writ Appeal No. 1043 of 1988 alongwith other Writ Appeals.