1961 (4) TMI 9 - SC - Customs

Whether a particular policy as regards imports is, on a consideration of all the various factors involved, in the general interests of the public? Held that - The attack on the validity of para 6(h) of the Imports Control Order, 1955 fails. The contention that Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, is bad to the extent that it permits the Government to make an order as in para 6(h) of the Imports Control Order, 1955, consequently also fails. The attack on this provision in para 6(h) of the order that it contravenes Article 31 is not even plausible. Assuming for the purpose of this case that the right to carry on trade is itself property, it is obvious that there is no question here of the acquisition of that right. It is clear however that though it was open to these petitioners to apply for licences under the Export Promotion Scheme they made no application for licence thereunder. There is no scope therefore for the argument that they have been discriminated against. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Protection of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g), Article 31, and Article 14 of the Constitution regarding import of glass chatons.
2. Validity of para 6(h) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, and Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947.
3. Reasonableness of canalization of imports through special agencies or channels.
4. Allegation of denial of equal protection of laws under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners sought protection of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g), Article 31, and Article 14 of the Constitution concerning the import of glass chatons, which were regulated by the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. The petitioners challenged the preferential treatment given to the State Trading Corporation in granting import permits for glass chatons, alleging a monopoly creation and discrimination.

2. The validity of para 6(h) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, and Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, was questioned. The petitioners argued that para 6(h) violated fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g), and Article 31. The Court allowed the challenge against the validity of para 6(h) and Section 3, focusing on the canalization of imports through specialized agencies or channels.

3. The Court deliberated on the reasonableness of canalization of imports through special agencies or channels, emphasizing its impact on the general public interest. It acknowledged the complexity of economic policies and the government's discretion in determining import policies. The Court held that canalization could be considered a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public unless proven otherwise.

4. The petitioners alleged a denial of equal protection of laws under Article 14 of the Constitution due to the preferential treatment given to the State Trading Corporation in granting import licenses. However, the Court noted that the petitioners did not apply for licenses under the Export Promotion Scheme, negating the claim of discrimination. The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners were not entitled to relief under Article 32 of the Constitution, and the petition was dismissed with costs.