M/S. NORTHERN PLASTICS LTD. versus HINDUSTAN PHOTO FILMS MFG. CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 252 · Decided: 20-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
M/S. NORTHERN PLASTICS L'[D. 
v. 
HINDUSTAN PHOTO FILMS MFG. CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 20, 1997 
(S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Customs Act 1962:-S. 129-D, Chapter XV. 
Maintainability of a11 appeal under the Customs Act-011ly parties to 
C the proceedings can appeal to CEGAT-'Locus Standi' to 'person aggrieved' 
which tenn includes third parties who have direct legal interest but not those 
merely wanti11g to appeal in general public interest or due to business rival-
ry-Appeal is a creature of Statute-The wider concept of 'Locus standi' 
applicable to PIL cannot be earned to statutes-Union of India, in wider 
D public interest, can challenge an order of the collector under Artcile 226 
though not before CEGAT~blic Interest litigation-Locus standi. 
Customs Tariff Act 1975-Chapter 37 of !st Schedule-Industrial 
(Development & Regulation) Act 1951-S. 25(1), Item 20 of !st Schedule. 
E 
The Appellant obtained Small Scale Industries registration, under 
the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act 1951, for slitting and con-
fectioning of jumbo rolls of various types of films. They had for this pur· 
pose imported X-ray films and graphic art films which arrived at the Port 
of Bombay. While the Appellant claimed concessional rates of duty based . 
on a notification by the Central Govt. on the said imported goods, the same 
F was refused by the Assesstant Collector of Customs. The Appellant thereon 
filed a Writ Petition before the High Court at Delhi werein the Respondent 
HPF who was not originally a party, was made a party on he direction of 
the Court and tht Single Judge passed an interim order for release of the' 
goods at the concessional duty. This order was set aside by the Division 
G Bench of the same High Court. However on an application by the Appellant 
to the Collector of Customs, permission for clearance of the goods on 
payment of the full duty was given and this order was also approved by the 
Additional Collector. On learning of this order the Respondent HP1'' prayed 
for stay or the order of the collector for premitting clearnace and removal 
of the imported goods, before the Delhi High Court in the plending petition 
H of the Appellant, which was eventually dismissed HPF also filed a Writ 
252 
NORTHERN PLASTICS LID. v. HINDUSfAN PHOTO FILMS MFG. CO. LID. 253 
Petition with a similar prayer for an interim order before the Bombay High A 
Court which was not granted, and HPF withdrew the petition later. A 
Special Leave Petition filed by HPF against the order of the Delhi High 
Court vacating ex-paJte stay against release of imported goods to Appellant 
was dismissed as withdrawn. 
A Writ Appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the Bombay B 
High Court. However no interim order was passed was by the said Division 
Bench. So HPF filed an appeal before the CEGAT which granted an 
ex-parte interim order to operate for a week on which HPF withdrew its Writ 
petition before the Bombay High Court. When this :nterim order of the 
CEGAT expired and was not extended, HPF filed a Writ Petition appe11ling C 
against the order of CEGAT on which the Division Bench of the Delhi High 
Court directed the CEGAT to dispose off the appeal of HPF and to grant 
a stay till final disposal of the case. While the appeal was pending disposal 
before CEGAT, the Ministry of Industries also filed an appeal before the 
same forum against the same of the order of the Additional Collector. The 
CEGAT held that HPF, a business rival was not a Person aggrieved as D 
contemplated under Section 129-A of the Customs Act and hence the 
appeal was not maintainable. The appeal of the Industries Ministry was 
also dismissed on the same grounds. 
Aggrieved by the order of CEGAT, HPF filed a Writ Petition before E 
the High Court at Delhi. The Division Bench of the High Court stayed the 
clearance of the goods till disposal of the Writ Petition. Ministry of 
Industries was also made a party to the said Writ Petition. The Union of 
India also filed a separate Writ Petition against the very same order of the 
GEGAT. By a common order the High Court disposed off the Petitions 
holding that the Appeals before the CEGAT by HPF and the Union of India F 
are maintainable as they are 'aggrieved persons' within the meaning of S 
129-A of the Customs Act and that they had Locus S(andi in public interest. 
Against the order of the Delhi High Court, the Appellant filed an SLP. 
This Court granted Leave and the Chief Controller of 

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