Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1988 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1988 (5) TMI 50 - SC - CustomsWhether at the relevant time, import of coconut oil had become canalised through the State Trading Corporation? Held that - Very appropriately, appellants learned counsel has not found fault with the High Court for not following the quasi-judicial opinion of the Board or the Central Government nor has he pleaded for acceptance of that by us as a precedent. Once on analysis we reach the conclusion that coconut oil of every description was covered in paragraph 5 of Appendix 9, the quasi-judicial decision ceases to be relevant. We propose to say no more on this aspect of the submission. What survives for consideration is the argument relating to the vice of breach of natural justice and the vice of collateral pressure of the Import Authorities in the making of the order. It has not been disputed that show cause notices were issued, cause was shown and considered by the statutory authorities. It may be that more of opportunities than extended were expected by the appellants in view of the fact that large stakes were in issue. The observance of the rules of natural justice is not referable to the fatness of the stake but is essentially related to the demands of a given situation. The position here is covered by statutory provisions and it is well settled that rules of natural justice do not supplant but supplement the law. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Import Policy of 1980-81. 2. Whether coconut oil import was canalized. 3. Authority of Collector to take a contrary view. 4. Breach of natural justice in the Collector's order. Interpretation of Import Policy of 1980-81: The case involved appeals against a full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court concerning the import of coconut oil. The appellants, a Company and its Managing Director, imported industrial coconut oil under specific licenses. Disputes arose when the Collector of Customs alleged that the import was illegal due to canalization. The High Court determined that the Import Policy of 1980-81 applied to the case as the licenses were issued during that period. The Collector's rejection of the plea regarding the import policy conditions was upheld. Canalization of Coconut Oil Import: The main issue was whether coconut oil import was canalized through the State Trading Corporation (STC). The judgment analyzed Rule 3 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 and Para 5 of Appendix 9 of the Import Policy. The Court concluded that all varieties of coconut oil, including industrial, were covered under the term "coconut oil" in the Import Policy. The argument that edible coconut oil alone was canalized through STC was dismissed, emphasizing that broader aspects must be considered for interpretation. Authority of Collector to Take Contrary View: The appellants contended that the Collector should have followed decisions of higher authorities, such as the Central Board and Central Government. The judgment clarified that while lower authorities are generally bound by higher decisions, the focus should be on determining the correct legal position. The Court highlighted that the quasi-judicial decision ceased to be relevant once it was established that all varieties of coconut oil were included in the Import Policy. Breach of Natural Justice in Collector's Order: Lastly, the appellants raised concerns about breach of natural justice and external pressure in the Collector's order. The Court found no breach in the statutory procedure and rejected the argument that the involvement of certain individuals vitiated the order. It emphasized that the rules of natural justice supplement the law and do not depend on the stakes involved. Ultimately, all contentions were dismissed, and the appeals were rejected, with costs awarded to the respondents.
|