Jaju Exports Private Limited vs M.S. Puranik, Assistant Collector of Customs and Another

Sujata Manohar, J.—The appellants are the original petitioners. The dispute in the writ petition relates to the import of Palm Oil by the appellants under a Bill of Lading dated 14th October 1977. According to the petitioners they held valid import licence dated 1st March 1977 for the import of Palm Oil.

Under a public notice dated 11th October 1977 attention of the public was invited to a notice dated 20th September 1977 issued by the Ministry of Commerce under which during the period April 1977 to March 1978 import of Palm Oil refined for direct human consumption was banned. On a further review of the position it was decided that all licences issued for Palm oil refined for direct human consumption, including those, if any, issued under para 3 of the instant Public Notice, against which shipment was not made wholly or partly on or before the 15th October 1977, would stand automatically invalidated for further imports.

The palm oil imported by the petitioners under the Bill of Lading dated 14.10.1977 arrived in November 1977. The respondents contended that this import was without the cover of a valid import licence. The appellants were, however, allowed to clear the goods on furnishing a bond for Rs. 1,36,000/- bond and on their undertaking to produce a valid licence within one month. The bond was executed by the appellants on 4.12.1977.

Thereafter a show cause notice dated 18.3.1978. was issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs to the appellants stating that the consignment in question was deemed to have been imported by the appellants without the cover of a valid import licence, in contravention of the Import Trade Control Regulations and they were directed to show cause within 10 days, why action should not be taken to enforce the terms of the bond. In case the appellants desired to be heard in person they should communicate their request for a personal hearing on 27.3.1978 at 4.30 P.M. The notice further stated that if no explanation was received within the time stipulated above or if the appellants do not appear for the personal hearing at the aforesaid time, the case would be adjudged ex parte without any further reference to the appellants. It was further stated in the show cause notice that although the goods was stated to have been shipped on board the vessel S.S. Mariya at Port Kelang as per the Bill of Lading dated 14.10.1977, the name of the carrying ship was different from the ship which brought the goods to Bombay. There was also no provision for transshipment. Therefore there was reason to believe that the Bill of lading was prepared just to indicate that the shipment was effected before the crucial date of 15.10.1977 in view of the ban on import of RBD Palm oil and hence the licence Was not treated as valid to cover the importation.

The appellants did not reply to the show cause notice within 10 days nor did they ask for any further time nor did they appear for a personal hearing on 27th March. Instead, along with their letter dated 27th April 1978 they paid up the amount of bond, namely Rs. 1,36,000/- although under protest. Four months thereafter they sent reply dated 4.7.1978 to the show cause notice. The respondents, by their letter dated 23.8.1978 informed the advocates of the appellants that the importation under reference was without a valid licence, that the show cause notice was issued and in the meanwhile the goods were allowed to be cleared on bond pending clarification from the C.C.I. & E. This clarification, however, was not furnished by the appellants and hence the show cause notice was issued on 18.7.1978. The appellants did not reply to the show cause notice within the prescribed period but paid the amount of bonds and the bonds were cancelled. Hence the matter was closed at their end. The letter also informed the appellants that they may prefer an appeal if they so desire. To this the appellants sent their reply dated 30th August 1978. Once again in answer to this, the respondents wrote a letter dated 13th September 1978 pointing out that as no reply was received within the specified time limit the case was decided and the terms of the bond were enforced. The appellants were therefore to follow the appeal procedure, if they so desired. Despite this clear reply given as far back as September 1978 the appellants have chosen to follow up by filing the present writ petition only on 20th March 1981. The learned Judge has therefore rightly come to the conclusion that there is considerable delay in coming before the court and has declined to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution looking to the above circumstances.

In our view looking to the circumstances we have set out above and in view of the fact that there is a delay of two years and eight months in coming to the court, the learned judge has rightly exercised his discretion not to intervene. The mere fact that the appellants carried on some correspondence With the respondents intermittently cannot be considered as a redeeming feature looking to the circumstances. The appeal is therefore dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.