9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act and for prosecution should not be taken, the petitioners preferred Special Leave Petition No. 11017 of 1991 before the Supreme Court. In the Petition, to which our attention was invited by Shri Pochkhanwala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on.......... several inaccurate statements were made, but we need not set out the same in the present judgment. It is unfortunate that the draftsman of the Special Leave Petition should have made allegations against the Court without any foundation whatsoever and more so when the petitioners did not care to .......... the Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated July 31, 1991 and thereafter the present petition along with the notice was placed before us on Monday, August 12, 1991. 2. When the petition reached for admission and for hearing of the notice, Shri Pochkhanwala appeared on behalf of the petitioners, and after the matter was argued for about half an hour, on our enquiries as to whether the petitioners desire to file any affidavit to show cause to the notice issued, stated that the affidavit would be filed on next ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector of Customs, Bombay seeking that direction should be issued to the Collector of Customs, Bombay for clearance of the imported goods. The partnership firm and the partners declared in the petition before the Supreme Court that the firm was the actual user of Butyle Acrylate and the firm was registered with the Directorate of Industries, Bombay on September 21, 1976 for manufacture of plastic moulded articles and plastic immitation jewellery. Possibly on the strength of the claim made by the firm and the partners, the Supreme Court by interim order dated August 16, 1985 directed the Collector of Customs, Bombay to release the goods imported by the petitioners on payment of duty, but specifically observed: "But the goods will not be permitted to be sold until further order of this Court." Taking advantage of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners cleared 72 Metric Tonnes of Butyle Acrylate and thereafter by openly flouting the order of the Supreme Court disposed of the entire quantity between September 2, 1985 and March 15, 1986 to as many as 60 parties. 4. On January 10,1990 the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports served notice under Cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... still in the custody of the C.B.I. Several further opportunities were given, but the petitioners did not file any reply and merely claimed that documents seized by the C.B.I. are not available. The Chief Controller then called upon the petitioners to produce seizure memo of the documents seized by the C.B.I., but the petitioners did not care even to produce copy of the seizure memo to indicate which documents were seized by the C.B.I. It was obvious to the Controller that the petitioners had no answer whatsoever to the facts disclosed in the show cause notice, including that the entire imported consignment was disposed of in violation of the specific order of the Supreme Court. Faced with this situation, the Additional Chief Controller ultimately passed the impugned order dated February 25, 1991 holding the petitioners guilty of violating Clause 8(1) and (d) of the Imports (Control) Order as well as violation of Section 4-K of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. The Additional Chief Controller directed that the firm and the partners should be debarred from receiving any import licence, CCPS, obtaining allotment of imported goods from any canalising agencies or from importing an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges levelled. The Chief Controller had given show cause notice setting out in extenso the manner in which the imported goods were disposed of, though the clearance was secured from the Supreme Court on the basis that the petitioners are the actual users. The petitioners could have easily examined any of the purchasers whose name along with the date of transfer, quantity transferred and the amount of consideration was clearly set out. In our judgment, the petitioners are guilty of serious misdemeanour and the penalty imposed by the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is extremely lenient. Indeed we are wondering why the Department did not prosecute the petitioners for cheating the Department. We are unable to find any ground to entertain the petition in exercise of our writ jurisdiction and accordingly we summarily dismiss the petition. We wish to make it clear that both the notice and the petition was placed on our Board and both the counsel were well aware that the petition will be taken up for admission and the notice also will be disposed of at the same time. 7. As regards the notice to show cause why action should not be taken under the Contempt of Courts Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
