9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Controls on exports and imports under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947; Alleged arbitrary refusal to grant import licences; Allegation of mala fide conduct by respondents; Violation of fundamental right to carry on business; Discriminatory treatment and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Analysis: The judgment discusses the background of controls on exports and imports introduced during the war and continued post the Defence of India Rules lapse under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Central Government issued notifications to regulate the import and export of commodities. The petitioners, a firm involved in exporting and importing, entered into a contract for exporting machinery to Ethiopia. They sought import licences based on the Special Exports Promotion Scheme, alleging entitlement to a specific amount. However, the respondents only granted a partial amount of the import licences requested, leading to the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that the refusal to grant the full import licences was arbitrary and infringed their fundamental right to conduct business. The court noted that while exporters are entitled to import licences up to a certain extent, the authorities can impose restrictions based on various considerations. In this case, the respondents reduced the import entitlement due to complaints regarding the quality of machinery exported. The court found that the power was not exercised arbitrarily, as supported by a report showing the machinery's deficiencies. Another contention was that the refusal to grant import licences was influenced by the petitioners' refusal to provide a loan to another entity. The court rejected this argument, stating that the loan request was not directly related to import entitlement decisions. The respondents denied any connection between the loan refusal and import licence issuance. Lastly, the petitioners alleged discriminatory treatment and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, claiming that other exporters and importers had been granted import licences. However, the court found the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence of discriminatory treatment or differential treatment without reasonable basis, thus rejecting the plea of Article 14 violation. In conclusion, the court held that the petitioners did not establish grounds for a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed with costs, as the court found no merit in the petitioners' claims of arbitrary refusal, mala fide conduct, or violation of fundamental rights and constitutional provisions.
|
