TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as permitted to import the poppy seeds from the country of origin - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey and Australia , In this licence, it was also stipulated that the petitioner shall have to actually use the imported goods. However, this condition was subsequently deleted. 3. It appears that immediately on the receipt of this import licence, the petitioner entered into an agreement with a supplier in Pakistan for the import of 1500 Mt. tonnes of poppy seeds. A copy of the fax message has been produced as Annexure P-7 with Civil Writ Petition No. 18876 of 1998. A few days later, on September 23, 1998, the petitioner opened a letter of credit in favour of the foreign supplier, viz., A. Razzak and Company for 105000 US dollars. Thereafter, on September 28 and September 29, 1998, the petitioner placed two more orders for the additional supply of 577 Mt. tonnes of poppy seeds. Letters of credit were also opened for the additional amounts on November 14 and November 21, 1998. Copies of the orders placed by the petitioner have been produced as Annexure P-11 and P-10, while those of the letters of credit are as Annexures P-12 and P-13 respectively. 4. In pursuance to the order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t licence. It is further maintained that the licence having been retrospectively amended, the import of the poppy seeds on November 9, 1998 from Pakistan was wholly illegal. Thus, both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 8. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 9. The questions that arise for consideration are: (i) Do the respondents have the jurisdiction to retrospectively amend an import licence? (ii) Can the respondents amend an import licence retrospectively or otherwise without the grant of any opportunity to the importer? (iii) Is the action of the respondents in initiating proceedings for the confiscation of the goods legal and thus, tenable? REGARDING (i) : With the object of providing for the development and regulation of foreign trade, the Parliament has enacted the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The primary object of this Act is to facilitate imports into and augment export from India........ . Section 9 of the Act inter alia provides for the issue of suspension and cancellation of licence. In Clause (2) the Director General or an officer authorised by him is competent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it could import poppy seeds from any of the four countries mentioned in the licence. Pakistan was one of the countries. The only condition imposed in the licence was that there should be a certificate from the country of origin that the seeds had been licitly grown. This certificate was produced by the petitioner. No authority from which the certificate was required, was mentioned. The expression competent authority was not defined. On perusal of the record, it has been conceded by Mr. Gumber that even the Department did not know as to who was the competent authority. Still, after the petitioner had placed the orders for the supply of a major part of the permitted quantity and after the lapse of three months, it was informed that it was not entitled to import any goods from Pakistan. Vide order dated December 8, 1998, two countries, viz, Afghanistan and Pakistan were ordered to be deleted from the licence. After consideration of the matter, we are satisfied that such a course of action is not permissible under the provisions of the Act or Rule 8. 14. It is well settled that the executive or a statutory authority has to act in conformity with law. In the present case, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the letter or spirit of law. They afforded no opportunity, whatsoever, to the petitioner. To say the least, the action was violative of the elementary rules of natural justice. It cannot, thus, be sustained. 15. Even the second question is accordingly answered against the respondents. REGARDING (iii) : A perusal of the facts delineated above shows that the petitioner had acted in conformity with the terms of the import licence. It had imported the goods from one of the countries mentioned in the import licence. It had got the certificates from the Government of Pakistan. It was clearly mentioned that the goods had been legally grown. Despite that the goods were not released. Proceedings for confiscation of the goods were initiated. This was so done, despite the fact that the petitioner had imported the goods in conformity with the stipulation in the import licence. Despite that the petitioner was accused of having imported the poppy seeds in violation of Para 15(2) of the EXIM Policy 1997-2000 read with........... . The petitioner had submitted a reply immediately on November 9, 1998. Still the goods were not released. It had then approached this Court on December 2, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
