- (1.) THIS is a petition under [Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business at Kanpur. It appears that in the year 1966-67 the Government of India launch ed a scheme for the import of spare parts of essential machinery and equipment from U. S. A. under U. S. Aid Non-Pro ject Loan. Consequently the Ministry of Commerce. Government of India issued a public notice No. 115 dated 11th August, 1966 setting out the conditions and pro cedure for obtaining licences for spare parts of machinery. Subsequently another public notice No. 117-ITC (PN)/66 dated 16th August, 1966 was issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India mentioning the articles which could be imported under the aforesaid scheme after taking out the necessary import licences. One of the items of which the import was permitted was "spare parts of refrigeration and air conditioning machinery other than, domestic refrige rators. In response to this notice the petitioner firm applied on 30th of July, 1966. to the fourth respondent, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Kanpur, for the grant of a lic ence to import "open type condensing units run by 1 H.P., 2 H.P.", 3 H.P., 4 H.P. and 5 H. P. without motor." This -application was granted on 12th December, 1966 and a licence dated 8th December. 1966 for Rs. 25,000.00 was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner then placed an order for the import of the aforesaid items with M/s. Sill Cox Refrigeration Corporation, U. S. A. which consigned the goods by a sea ship. When the shipment arrived at Bombay Port, the Clearing Agent of the petitioner was refused clearance of the consignment on the ground that the goods imported were not covered by the import licence issued to the petitioner and also that the value of the goods im ported exceeded Rs. 25,000.00. The De partment of Customs, Bombay, issued to the petitioner a notice under Section 112 of the Sea Customs Act requiring it to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated for the following reasons: (i) That the import licence issued was for spare parts of refrigerators and air-conditioning machinery other than domestic refrigerators, whereas the goods imported are found on an examination to be complete condensing units, which are not covered by the licence produced. (ii) That the value of the goods im ported exceeds the value of the licence produced by Rs. 426.00.
(2.) THE petitioner submitted a written explanation contending that the imported items were spare parts of refri gerator and air conditioning machinery and were not complete units inasmuch as in order to be complete units they would require addition of motors, there mistake switch, expansion wall capillary, cabinet and various other parts. With regard to the second ob jection, it was explained that while the shipment was on its way, war broke out between Egypt and Israil as a result of which Suez Canal was closed and the ship carrying cargo had to come via Cape of Good hope covering a longer dis tance and it is on that account that an extra freight of Rs. 426.00 was demanded by the shippers. As such this extra de mand could not be said to be the increas ed value of the imported goods. The petitioner also pointed out that in its application for the licence it had clearly specified the items which were to be im ported and after having issued a licence on the basis of that application, it was not open to the authorities concerned to hold that they were not covered by the import licence. This explanation of the petitioner was not accepted and the Col lector of Customs, Bombay on 12th Janu ary, 1968, passed the following order:- "I, therefore, order that the goods in question shall be confiscated under Sec tion 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. I, however, allow under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, an option to pay in lieu of such confiscation a fine of Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand only) and clear the goods for home consumption. This order......... or within such extended period as may be allowed on good and sufficient cause being shown to the satis faction of the Adjudicating Authority. Sd.00 G. S. Sawhney, Collector of Customs, Bombay." The petitioner appealed to the second respondent, the Central Board of Excise, Customs, New Delhi, but failed, except that the fine of Rs. 50,000.00 was reduced to Es. 25,000.00. The petitioner thereupon preferred a revision to the first respon dent, the Union of India, under Section 131 of the Sea Customs Act. This peti tion also failed except that the Govern ment of India by its order dated July 2, 1971 further reduced the fine to Rupees 10,500.00. The petitioner then applied to the Central Government for review of its order, but this application met with no better fate and was dismissed by an order dated November 1, 1971. The peti tioner then met the Finance Minister and also submitted to him a written repre sentation. According to the petitioner, this representation is still pending, but 1 according to the averment contained in the counter-affidavit, the Minister had declined to interfere.
(3.) THE petitioner then received a letter from his counsel at Bombay that the Deputy Dock Manager, Bombay, had informed him that if the consignment was not cleared within a fortnight, the same shall be sold by public auction under Sections 64 and 64-A of the Bom bay Port Trust Act. It is at this stage that the petitioner filed the present writ petition and this Court while admitting the writ petition passed the following interim order on 19th July, 1972 a Issue notice. Until further orders the confiscated goods shall not be sold.;