1984 (9) TMI 62 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Import of goods not conforming to the import license.
3. Allegation of discrimination in penalty imposition.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Dismissal of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
The case involved an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by a learned Single Judge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant, a trading company, had imported goods under a license issued by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. However, upon inspection, it was found that the imported goods did not conform to the description in the license. The Deputy Collector of Customs ordered confiscation of the goods, giving an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. The appellant's appeal and revision were unsuccessful, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

Issue 2: Import of goods not conforming to the import license
The main contention raised was regarding the nature of the imported goods. The appellant argued that despite the goods being machine finished tissue paper, the end use was intended for napkins and serviettes, which should have been covered under the import license. However, the court examined the Import Trade Control Policy for the relevant period, noting that the goods imported did not match the specific description given in the license. The court agreed with the finding that the goods were not in conformity with the license and were not allowed under the prevailing policy, thus refusing to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 3: Allegation of discrimination in penalty imposition
The appellant also raised an issue of discrimination, claiming that other firms importing similar goods were treated leniently without heavy penalties. The court acknowledged that penalties should not be uniform but should not appear discriminatory. It was noted that other firms were warned about breaching trade regulations and were not penalized due to extenuating circumstances. The court found that there was no evidence of arbitrary exercise of discretion in imposing penalties and upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge against the appellant.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the appellant was unsuccessful, and no costs were awarded. The court upheld the decision regarding the non-conformity of imported goods with the license and dismissed the discrimination claim in penalty imposition.