- (1.) These appeals by certificaye are directed against the common judgment of a full bench of the Delhi High court dated 20/12/1984, in two Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants are respectively a Company and its Managing Director. The Company was the holder of Letter of Authority in respect of three licences for import of coconut oil in one case and of two licences in the other and was appointed Letter of Authority Holder in respect of the said licences. It imported two consignments of 5342.369 Mts. and 3002.557 Mts. of refined industrial coconut oil from Sri Lanka and the delivery port was Kandla The respective ships carrying the aforesaid cargo arrived at the port of destination on 22/09/1982, and S 10/09/1982, and appellant 1 filed the bills of entry for release of the said cargo in the office of the Assistant Collector or Customs at Kandla. Instead of release of the cargo on the basis of steps taken by appellant 1, notices to show cause were received by appellant 1 on the allegation that import Of industrial coconut oil was not legal as it was a Canalised item. Appellant 1 was called upon to show cause as to why the cargo may not be confiscated under S. 111 (d) of the Customs Act as also why the appellants may not he penalised under S. 112 thereof. The appellants showed cause and look the stand that import of industrial coconut oil was not banned under the Import Policy of the government for the relevant period and the premises upon which the authorities had proceeded to direct issue of show cause was factually untenable. When personal hearing was afforded, on behalf of appellant 1 it was pointed out that the notices by respondent 3 were the outcome of bias and the said statutory authority had not applied his own mind to the matter in controversy. it was also printed out that Shri Takhat Ram, Joint Chide Controller of Imports and Exports had taken undue interest in the matter to the prejudice of the appellants and had brought to bear upon the statutory authority pressure to act against the interests of the appellants. By the adjudication orders dated 17/12/1982 and De 20/12/1982, respondent 3came to the conclusion that "coconut oil, whether edible or not, were Canalised items and fell within the ambit of Appendix 9 para 5 (1 of the Import Policy of 1980-81. It was not an item under the OGL of 1980-81 Policy". Respondent 3 further held that neither of the consignments was covered by the import licences produced by the appellants and was, therefore, liable to be confiscated under S. 111 (d) of the Act but gave an option to appellant 1 to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 3 crores and Rs. 2 crores respectively as redemption fines. On 27/12/1982 two Writ Petition were filed in the High court of Delhi challenging the action of the Collector. The said Writ Petition were finally placed before a bench of three Judges of the High court ; two of them being Sachar and Khanna, JJ. , came to hold that the Writ Petition were liable to be dismissed while the other judge being Wad, J. took the view that the action of the Collector was totally untenable and that the writ petition should be allowed and the order of the Collector should be set aside. The majority of the learned judges were of the further view that the quantum of redemption line should be considered by the Appellate tribunal. Sachar 1. with whom Khanna, J. concurred, directed : I would in the circumstances remit the matter to the Appellate tribunal but only on the question of consideration of the question of quantum of redemption fine. The Appellate tribunal could hear and dispose of this matter as if it was hearing an appeal filed by the petitioners but. only on the question of quantum of redemption fine. In the absence of any challenge this part of the order of the High court has become final and has to operate irrespective of the fate of the two appeals.
(2.) The following common contentions have been advanced by learned counsel for the appellants : (1 The import policy of which wear would be applicable to the tact's of the present case - the period during which the licences were issued or the time when import actually took place. (2 Whether "coconut oil arpearing in para 5 of Appendix 9 of the Import Policy of 1980-81 was confide to the edible variety or covered the indivisual (sic industrial) variety. (3 Whether in the face of the decision of the Board and central government as the statutory appellate and revisional authorities it was open to the Collector functioning in lower tier to take a contrary view of the matter in exercise of quasi judicial jurisdiction: and (4 Whether the order of the Collector was vitiated for breach of rules of natural justice, and collateral considerations in the making of the orders. It is not in dispute that the relevant import policy to be referred to is of the year 1980-81 as all the licences were issued during that period. The Collector found and the High court has not recorded a different finding that when the licence was first revalidated on 18/01/1982, such revalidation was subject to paragraph 215 of the Import Policy of 1981-82. Again while revalidating some of the licences on 25/09/1982, it was stipulated that during the extended period, items which do not appear in Appendices 5 and 7 of Import Policy of 1982-83 could not be allowed to be imported and items which appear in Appendix 26 of the Import Policy of 1982-83 will also not be allowed to be imported. The Collector turned down the plea that the licences allowed the import of items appearing in Appendices 5 and 7 of 1979-80 policy and 1982-83 policy in addition to the items appearing in the OGL and industrial coconut oil. In the instant case, the licences were either of 1980 or 1981 and were revalidated from time to time. for convenience we may refer to a sample order of revalidation dated 28/06/1982. Revalidation was subject to the following conditions : This licence is revalidated for a Further period of six months from the date of revalidation with the condition that during the extended period of validity the items which do not appear in Appendices 5 and 7 of the Import Policy of 1982-83 will not be imported. This licence will also not be valid for the import of items appearing in Appendix 26 of the Import Policy of 1982-83 during the extended period of validity.
(3.) The High court lias come to the correct conclusion that the terms of Import Policy of 1980-81 would apply to the facts of these cases.;