9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appropriate action should be taken against the petitioners as well as against the customs authorities for violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court. 2. Vide order dated June 9, 1989, P.N. Nag, J. restrained the petitioner from removing the goods from Bombay Port or clearing the goods from the Customs Authorities. It was further directed that in case the goods had already been removed, then the same would be taken possession by the Bombay Customs Authorities and same be put in joint custody of the Customs Authorities and petitioner. 3. Petitioners have filed reply to the application and have prayed that the stay be vacated and the application, filed by respondent No.4, be dismissed. 4. For better appreciation of the respective contentions, made by learned counsel for parties, it will be useful to refer to in brief the facts of the case. 5. Petitioners filed a writ petition No.2021 of 1988, thereby praying the grant of following reliefs: "(i) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions while directing the respondents to produce and/or cause to produce all relevant record in relation to issuance of Press Note dated 8-7-1986 and Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition, it is alleged that petitioner No.1 is a public limited company and has all specialised know-how and all expertise at its disposal to carry on confectioning/ slitting of jumbo rolls and related industrial activities. Petitioner No. 1 is engaged in confectioning/slitting of jumbo rolls of the following: (a) Photographic colour paper; (b) Graphic art films; (c) Cinematographic colour films (unexposed) positive; (d) X-Ray films (medical and industrial). As per the statutory requirements, petitioner No.l approached the Authorities concerned and after making full investigation and satisfying themselves, the Authorities had granted Small Scale Industries Permanent Registration, in its name vide certificate dated August 24, 1985. Petitioner No.l was also ready to go into production for X-Ray films (Medical and Industrial) and cinematographic colour (unexposed) positive by May 22, 1986. Petitioners applied for grant of Carry on Business licence on December 8, 1986. Government of India had announced on July 18, 1986 that six months after the notification importation of photo sensitised material would not be allowed except under a licence under the I.D.R. Act. Since the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the petitioners' goods till the disposal of the writ petition. 13. The present applicant, namely, M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Company Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking, was added as one of the parties by the Division Bench, vide order dated May 8, 1989. 14. It appears that petitioners obtained and purchased the additional licences from the other export houses in the open market under paragraphs 215 and 215 (6) of the Import and Export Policy for the year April 1988-March 1991 and cleared the goods from the Customs Authorities, Bombay, after paying the full customs duty. 15. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned counsel for applicant/respondent No. 4, contends that under Section 29-B of the Industrial Development and Regulation Act, petitioners could not import the goods in question and also could not manufacture the goods unless and until petitioners obtain an industrial licence under the Act. In the present case, petitioner No. l does not have the industrial licence for Graphic art films and X-Ray films (Medical and Industrial). Hence the import itself was illegal. Even, petitioners do not hold any licence to carry on business. 16. In the second place, Mr. Rohtagi cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contained in the aforesaid policy, petitioners and for that matter any person is entitled to clear the goods on the strength of additional licence and on payment of full customs duty. 20. With regard to the observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the order dated May 8, 1989, Dr. Pal urges that the controversy in the appeal was whether petitioners could be allowed to clear the goods at the concessional rate of duty. In that context, it was observed that if petitioners were allowed to clear the goods at the concessional rate of duty, then, respondent No.4 would be faced with severe competition. If no concessional rate of duty was availed of, any one on the strength of additional licence could import the aforesaid articles on payment of full Customs Duty and there was no cut throat competition. According to Dr. Pal, if petitioners had been permitted to clear the goods on concessional rate of duty, then, petitioners would have paid Rs. 58 lacs only as duty. Now, petitioners have paid a sum of Rs. 196 lacs on account of additional customs duty. Thus, substantial amount has been paid in excess of the concessional rate of duty for the clearance and if there is anybody under dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, a licence holder may transfer the licence in full or in part in favour of any other person. The transfer of the licence will not require any endorsement or permission from the licensing authority. Accordingly, clearance of the goods covered by an additional licence issued under this Policy, will be allowed by the Customs Authorities on production by the transferee of only the documents of transfer of the licence concerned in his name. Whenever an Additional licence is transferred, the transferor should give a formal letter to the transferee, giving full particulars regarding No., Date and Value of the licence transferred and the name and address of the transferee." 24. It is clear that the aforesaid items are appearing in Part 1 of List 8, Appendix 6 of the aforesaid policy. It appears that petitioners purchased/obtained the additional licence from the other export houses in the open market, and the goods were cleared by the Collector of Customs at Bombay after the payment of full customs duty. Presumably, this has been done under paras 215 and 216 of the aforesaid policy. Petitioners paid approximately a sum of Rs. One Crore Ninety lakhs as customs duty. If petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
