TAWI AUTOPARTS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE EXTENSION AREA JAMMU Vs. ADDL CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A penalty of Rs. 10 lacs stands slapped on the petitioner for allegedly contravening the terms of import licence No. P/S1840871 dated 16-12-1978 It transpires that one Harcharan Singh was the sole proprietor of M/s. Tawi Autoparts manufacturing auto parts. His unit was provisionally registered by the Joint Director, Small Scale Industries dt. 8-2-1974 for manufacturing of auto parts. On this basis he was granted import licence for the import of stainless steel to manufacture auto parts. Later the Director of Industries seems to have allowed him an additional line for manufacture of stainless steel utensils. He was accordingly granted permanent registration of his unit for manufacture of stainless steel utensils on 16-5-1980. His unit was inspected by the enforcement officials of the Chief Controller's office in 1981 and he was found to be manufacturing stainless steel utensils without getting the licence amended from the licensing authority/sponsoring authority. He died on 26-2-1984 and thereafter his business went haywire. The present petition has been filed through his wife and her case is that an excessive penalty of Rs. 10 lacs was imposed on the petitioner-unit without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard in terms of Section 4-I (1)(a) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.

(2.) In the reply filed respondents have reiterated the stand taken by them in their detailed order dated 28-5-1986 impugned in this petition whereby penalty of Rs. 10 lacs was imposed on the petitioner. Their short case is that the petitioner was given licence to import stainless steel for manufacture of auto parts but instead it utilized the raw material for manufacture of stainless steel utensils, thus, committing breach of the terms of the licence rendering it liable to penalty which could extend to five times the value of the raw material consumed. It is also contended by them that the petitioner was served a show cause notice dated 6-11-1985 which did not elicit any reply and that a personal opportunity of hearing was also granted on 6-5-1986 It is also pointed out that the petitioner's unit was permanently registered on 16-5-1990 for the "same end product which does not cover the manufacture of stainless steel utensils."

(3.) Petitioner's grievance is that the impugned order levying disproportionate and excessive penalty was passed on a wrong factual basis as the unit was permanently registered for manufacture of stainless steel utensils and not for auto parts. It is also urged that the order was passed at the back of the petitioner inasmuch as the sole proprietor of the firm had died on 26-2-1984 and the show cause notice was allegedly dated 6-11-1985 In other words it is projected that wife of the deceased-proprietor, the present petitioner, was not put on notice muchless given any reasonable opportunity of being heard under the relevant provisions of the Act.