D. Navinachandra & Co., Bombay & Anr. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided

15 April 1987

Case no.

0

Facts

The background of the case stems from a common order issued by the Supreme Court on April 18, 1985, in the case of Union of India v. Rajnikant Bros., which directed the issuance of Export House Certificates and Additional Licences to diamond exporters, including the petitioners. This order allowed the import of items not specifically banned under the import policy at the time of import. Following this, the petitioners imported several consignments but faced fines and notices from Customs for items that fell under Appendices 2B, 3, and 5 of the Import Policy 1985-88. The petitioners challenged these actions, arguing that subsequent court decisions had undermined their rights under the earlier ruling.

Arguments

Petitioner Arguments

The petitioners argued that the fines imposed by Customs and the subsequent show cause notices were unjustified and contrary to the Supreme Court's earlier ruling. They contended that the subsequent decisions of the court had effectively curtailed their rights to import items as per the April 1985 order. The court addressed these arguments by clarifying that the subsequent rulings did not alter the essence of the earlier decision but rather reinforced it, emphasizing that the importation was permissible only for items not specifically banned.

Respondent Arguments

The respondents, representing the Union of India, maintained that the imposition of fines and notices was lawful and in accordance with the import policy. They argued that the petitioners could only import items that were not banned under the current policy at the time of import. The court supported this view, stating that the importation of goods must comply with the relevant rules and that the canalisation policy could not be disregarded.

Precedents considered

The judgment referenced the earlier case of Union of India v. Rajnikant Bros., which established the framework for the issuance of Export House Certificates and the conditions under which imports could be made. The court also cited Raj Prakash Chemicals v. Union of India, which clarified the scope of permissible imports for diamond exporters under the Additional Licences.

Legal principles

The court considered several legal principles, including

• The presumption that courts act lawfully and do not authorize illegal actions.
• The necessity for imports to comply with the current import policy, specifically regarding items that are not banned.
• The distinction between canalised and uncanalised items and the requirement to adhere to relevant rules for importation.

Decision and reasoning

Rationale

The court reasoned that the earlier decision was meant to rectify a previous wrong regarding the denial of Export House Certificates. However, it maintained that this rectification did not grant blanket permission to import all items without regard to the existing import policy. The court emphasized that the conditions for permissible imports must be strictly adhered to, ensuring that the canalisation policy was respected.

Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the legality of the fines and notices issued by Customs. The court reiterated that the petitioners could only import items that were not specifically banned under the import policy at the time of import. There were no specific instructions for the appeal process mentioned in the judgment.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to established import policies and the legal framework governing imports. It clarifies the limits of judicial orders in the context of administrative actions by Customs and reinforces the principle that lawful importation must comply with existing regulations.

Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)