TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ganguli and Ms. Sushma Belan, Advocates for the Appellant. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate, Mr. J.B. Dadachanji, Mr. R. Narain, Mrs. A.K. Verma, Mr. D.N. Mishra, Mr. Aditya Narayan and Mr. Harish N. Salve, Advocates with him for the Respondents. [Judgment per : Sabyasachi Mukharji, J]. - This is an application for special leave to appeal against the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 22nd/23rd July, 1986 filed on behalf of the Union of India. 2. M/s Godrej Soaps (P) Limited, and a shareholder and Director of the said company, Mr. A.B. Godrej who were petitioners went before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1665 of 1986. The said petitioners who are respondents herein (hereinafter described as respondents) purchased 544.860 Metric Tonnes of Palm Karnel Fatty Acid on high sea basis imported under an additional licence. They challenged the action of the Customs authorities refusing to permit the clearance of the said Palm Karnel Fatty Acid in view of the decision of this Court in Raj Prakash Chemical s case - (1986) 2 SCC 297 and Indo Afghan Chamber of Commerce s case - AIR 1986 SC 1567. 3. It may be mentioned that one Messrs. Dim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence category as per para 176 of Import Policy for 1978-79 excluding those items which were banned in the Policy for the period 1978-79 and which have been banned in the Import Export Policy volume 1, 1985-88. The additional licence category import shall be subject to the provisions of para 176 of the Import Policy for 1978-79. It was the contention of the petitioners before the Bombay High Court that it was absolutely clear that the holders of the said licences would be entitled to import items permissible to export houses under the additional licence category as per para 176 of the Import Policy for 1978-79. 5. It may be mentioned that the said direction of this Court came up for consideration before this Court again in Civil Appeal No. 4978 of 1985 - Raj Prakash Chemicals Ltd. Another v. Union of India Others (supra). This Court clarified the decision in that case which was rendered by a bench of three learned judges consisting of V.D. Tulzapurkar, J. and both of us (R.S. Pathak and Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ). 6. As this Court has observed in M/s Indo Afghan Chambers of Commerce and another v. Union of India and others (supra) the order dated 18th April, 1985 has been c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e holding an Additional Licence can directly import certain canalised items also. In that event, in view of the aforesaid discussion, an Expert House holding an Additional Licence will be entitled to import items open ordinarily to direct import (non-canalised items) as well as items directly importable although on the canalised list. It is in that sense that the Court could have intended to define the entitlement of a diamond exporter. He would be entitled to import items whether canalised or not , if the Import Policy prevailing at the time of import permitted him to import items falling under each category. The Court would not know whether in the future certain canalised items could be imported directly by an Export House holding an Additional Licence. The possibility of a policy being framed in the future enabling an Export House holding an Additional Licence to directly import items which are non-canalised and also items which are canalised cannot be ruled out. It is in this light that the Court can be said to have used the words whether canalised or otherwise" in its order dated 18th April, 1985. 8. The point from a slightly different angle was considered in writ peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnes of palm karnel fatty acid (now called the said acid ) on high seas basis from M/s Dimexon. M/s Dimexon had imported the said acid on the strength of an additional licence issued to it pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18th April, 1985 in Civil Appeal No. 1423 of 1984 - Union of India v. Rajnikant Brothers. The Customs authorities, according to the said respondents, refused to permit clearance of the said acid on the ground that the canalised items could not be imported even under such additional licence. The respondents, therefore, filed a writ petition in this Court requiring the Union of India and the Customs authorities to permit clearance of the said acid. It may be mentioned, the said acid was not a canalised item under the Import Policy 1978-79. It is a canalised item under the current Import Policy 1985-88. 10. As the Government refused to permit clearance of the said goods because the said goods were canalised, the learned single judge of the Bombay High Court by its order dated 10th July, 1986 permitted the clearance of the goods in question. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, Union of India preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Bombay High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
