1989 (5) TMI 237 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Issuance and scope of the C.O.B. (Carry On Business) Licence.
2. Allegations of preferential treatment and violation of Article 14.
3. Interim applications for the release of photographic material at concessional customs duty rates.
4. Impleading of Hindustan Photo Films Ltd. as a party-respondent.
5. Interpretation of letters dated 8-4-1987 and 9-8-1987 regarding customs duty concessions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issuance and Scope of the C.O.B. Licence:
The respondents claimed to be a small-scale industry engaged in the confectioning/slitting of various photographic materials and applied for a C.O.B. Licence on 8-12-1986. The Government of India had announced that importation of photo sensitized material would require a licence under the I.D.R. Act. Pending the consideration of their application, the respondents imported some photographic material and sought clearance as an interim measure. On 8-4-1987, the Ministry permitted them to carry on business and allowed the Customs Department to clear the consignment of jumbo rolls. However, the C.O.B. Licence issued on 7-12-1988 was limited to photographic colour paper only, leading to a dispute regarding the refusal to grant a licence for the remaining items.

2. Allegations of Preferential Treatment and Violation of Article 14:
The petitioner alleged that M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking, received favorable treatment in terms of duty concessions, which was denied to them, constituting a violation of Article 14. They sought the production of records regarding the exemption notification dated 7-7-1988 and demanded the issuance of a C.O.B. Licence for all four items of photographic material listed in their application.

3. Interim Applications for the Release of Photographic Material at Concessional Customs Duty Rates:
During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners filed multiple applications for the release of various photographic materials at concessional customs duty rates. Interim orders were passed on these applications, leading to appeals. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to dispose of the interim applications and the connected appeals expeditiously, maintaining the status quo pending disposal.

4. Impleading of Hindustan Photo Films Ltd. as a Party-Respondent:
Hindustan Photo Films Ltd. filed an application to be impleaded as a party in the writ petition, which was initially rejected by the single Judge. The Supreme Court, while disposing of the appeal, left it to the High Court to consider whether Hindustan Photo Films Ltd. should be made a party-respondent. The High Court later opined that the presence of Hindustan Photo Films Ltd. was vital for effectively resolving the controversy and directed their impleadment as a party-respondent.

5. Interpretation of Letters Dated 8-4-1987 and 9-8-1987 Regarding Customs Duty Concessions:
The respondents based their claim for duty concessions on the letter dated 8-4-1987, which they interpreted as equivalent to a C.O.B. Licence permitting the import of all four items at concessional rates. However, a subsequent letter dated 9-8-1987 clarified that the Ministry had no objection to the Customs Department exempting only photographic colour paper consignments. The High Court noted that erroneous interpretation of the letter dated 8-4-1987 by the learned single judges led to prejudicial impacts on foreign exchange and the economy. The Court emphasized the necessity of disposing of the writ petition early to prevent further market upheaval.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned single judges due to the erroneous interpretation of the letter dated 8-4-1987. The Court directed the writ petition to be disposed of within a fortnight after fresh hearings, including the participation of Hindustan Photo Films Ltd. The appeals were allowed, and no order as to costs was made.

← Previous Next →