COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA versus M. SHASIDKANT AND CO.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 7 · Decided: 08-01-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA 
\/. 
M. SHASIDKANT AND CO. 
JANUARY 8, 1992 
A 
[S. RANGANATIIAN, KULDIP SINGH AND N. M. 
B 
KASLIW AL, JJ .] 
Import-Export Policy 1978-79. Export House-Grant of additional Im-
port Licence to import goods permitted under the Import Policy or those 
permitted at the time of import-Import of canalised item, Palm acid oil--
Order confiscating the goods-Validity of-Held import was unauthorised 
because the goods imported were banned under the import policy. 
The respondent-company applied for the grant or Export House 
Certificate under the Import Policy 1978-79 which was denied on the 
ground that it had not diversified its exports. The writ petition filed by 
the respondent in the Bombay High Court was allowed against which the 
Union or India rded a Special Leave Petition in this Court. By its order 
dated April 18, 1985 (Union of India v. Rajnikant Bros.) this Court 
dismissed the petition and directed the Union or India to issue the 
necessary Export House Certificate to the respondent. The said order 
stated that "save and except items which are specifically banned under 
the prevalent import policy at the time or import; the respondent shall 
be entitled to import all other items whether canalised or otherwise in 
accordance with the relevant rules." 
Py its judgment dated 5th March, 1986 in Raj Prakash G_hemicals v. 
c 
D 
E 
Union of India, (1986) 1 S.C.R. 448 this Court clarified its order dated 
18th April, 1985 stating that only such items could be imported under F 
the additional licence as were permitted under the Import Policy at the 
time of import. However, those additional licence holders who had 
opened and established irrevocable letters of Credit before 18th October, 
1985 should be permitted to clear the imported goods notwithstanding 
the clarification of court's order dated 18th April, 1985. This judgm~nt _ G 
was approved by this Court in its subsequent decisions. 
Pursuant to this court's directions dated 18th April, 1985 the 
respondent was granted Additional Licence for the import of Palm acid 
oil-a canalised item under the Import Policy 1985-88. On 5th May 1986 
it entered into a contract with a Singapore firm and imported 4000 M.T. H 
of Palm acid oil. The Collector of Customs confJSCated the goods on the 
7 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 1 S. C.R. 
A 
ground that import was unauthorised because it was a canalised item but 
gave the respondent an option to get the goods released on payment of 
a fine or Rs. 58,00,000. 
~ 
The respondent preferred an appeal before the Customs Excise and 
Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which. allowed the appeal and set 
B 
aside the Collector's order on the grounds that : (i) the Additional 
Licence Holders were permitted to import canalised items; (ii) the 
import by respondent was bona fide; and (iii) the respondent's case was 
covered by a judgment of this court in B. Vijay Kumar v. Collector of 
Customs, Civil Appeal Nos. 4445 & 4446 of 1988 decided on December 
16, 1988. 
c 
~ 
Against the judgment of the Tribunal, Union of India filed an 
appeal before this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
D 
HELD : 1. This court in its order dated April 18, 1985 categori-
cally stated that "save and except items which are specifically banned 
under the prevalent import policy at the time or import, the respondents 
shall be entitled to import all other items whether canalised or otherwise 
in accordance with the relevant rules." There is no ambiguity in the 
order which makes it clear that the additional licence holders would not 
E 
be entitled to import ~he items which are specifically banned under the 
import policy 1985-88. No other interpretation is possible. The item 
imported by the respondent was a banned item under the import policy 
1985-88. The import was, thus, on the face of it unauthorised. [110-E, 
F 
G 
H 
12-B] 
. 
2. In the face of clear and unambiguous judgments of this Court 
it was not open for the departmental authorities to entertain a contrary 
opinion. The Departmental officers were not justified in taking the view 
that the order permitted the import of canalised items. Therefore, the 
Tribunal fell into grave error in accepting the plea of bona fide raised by 
the respondent and setting aside the order of the Collector. Accordingly 
the judgment of the-Tribunal is set aside and the order or the Collector 
of Customs is restored. [14-B, llE, 14-A, GJ 
Union of India v. Mis Godrej Soaps Ltd., [

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.