TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been shipped in August, 1970 and they arrived in the Madras harbour in November 1970. Since the goods could not be cleared, unless there was a valid licence to import the same, the appellant applied to the fourth respondent for revalidation of the licence which expired on 30-6-1970. The fourth respondent ordered revalidation of the licence from 12-11-1970 being the date of application to 31-12-1970. Since the licence as revalidated would not enable the petitioner-appellant to clear the goods, as the shipment itself was subsequent to the expiry of the period of the original actual users licence, the appellant applied to the fourth respondent for revalidation of the licence from 30-6-1970 to 31-12-1970. The fourth respondent by his order dated 26-11-1970 revalidated the licence from 30-6-1970 the date of expiry of the licence upto 31-12-1970. Thereafter the fourth respondent by a communication dated 7-12-1970 called upon the appellant to return the actual users licence, as revalidated, on information from the. Customs Department that as the entire quantity referred to in the actual users licence had been imported, there was no question of revalidated the licence subsequent to 30- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the appellant before the order was issued by the fourth respondent on 15-12-1970 cancelling the licence and that in fact the order dated 15-12-1970 has been passed without giving an opportunity to the appellant to put forward its case and without hearing it. But the learned Judge has proceeded to observe as follows :- Certainly the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a rigid way divorced from the realities of the situation. To me it appears on a careful analysis of all these that the petitioner (appellant herein) had used the invalidation for the purpose of producing the licence to Customs to obtain clearance from Customs against REP licence making use of the flexibility provision. Therefore, the petitioner was trying to play fraud. But before the petitioner could succeed, the mistake was found and it was rectified by the Department. The learned Judge also took the view that since the revalidation itself was incorrect, which came to be discovered only when the Customs Department pointed out the mistake, the appellant, even if it had been given a show cause notice regarding the proposed cancellation of the licence, would not have succeeded in resisting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard. In this case no such opportunity was given to the appellant before the licence in its favour was cancelled. Thus, there is a clear violation of not only the principles of natural justice but also the statutory provision in Clause 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. The learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the appellant has not chosen to question the order of cancellation, dated 15-12-1970 at any time before the filing of the writ petition and as a matter of fact the appellant itself in the proceedings before the authorities below proceeded on the basis that the licence had been validly cancelled, and bad been pleading only for leniency in the matter of imposition of fine and therefore it is not open to the appellant to question the validity of the order of cancellation in these proceedings which are directed against the subsequent order dated 19-8-1971 confiscating the goods imported and imposing a redemption fine of ₹ 38,000/-, which was later reduced to 13,200/- as a result of the revisional order passed by the first respondent on 13-12-1973. It is no doubt true that the order of cancellation of the licence passed on 15-12-1970 has not been directly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the third respondent on 19-8-1971, the appellant while questioning the validity of the order of the third respondent dated 19-8-1971 can make a collateral attack against the order of cancellation dated 15-12-1970. We find that the impugned order dated 19-8-1971 has been passed on the basis that the appellant had no valid licence on the date of the import of goods and therefore the import was unauthorised. If there was no cancellation of the licence, we cannot say whether the impugned order would have been passed by the authorities. The learned Counsel for the respondents would contend that even if there has been no cancellation of the licence, since the quantity referred to in the licence had already been exhausted by actual user, the appellant cannot import any goods in pursuance of the said licence. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant refers to a notification dated 13-5-1970 which proceeds on the basis that the actual users licence, of which the period of validity has not expired, but the value has been exhausted, will be treated as a valid liceace. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, if the licence has not been cancelled, it can form the basis for i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
