Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
M/s. RAMCHAND JAGADISH CHAND
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
08/08/1961
BENCH:
SHAH, J.C.
BENCH:
SHAH, J.C.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
SUBBARAO, K.
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
CITATION:
1963 AIR 563 1962 SCR (3) 72
CITATOR INFO :
R 1966 SC1044 (8)
E 1968 SC 718 (18)
R 1971 SC1283 (11)
ACT:
Import Licence-Import Trade Control Policy-Export Promotion-
Scheme-Right of State to impose restrictions on imports-If
infringes fundamental right-Licencing Authority Powers
granted under the scheme--Whether uncanalised and arbitrary-
Emergency Provisions (continuance, Ordinance, 1946 Imports
and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947) s.3--Imports
(Control) Order 1955, Cl. 3. Appendix 42, cl. Constitution
of India-Arts. 14, 19(1) (g).
Intervener Writ petition dismissed by High Court-Petitioner
could be heard as intervener in Supreme Court-Right of
appeal Constitution of India-Art. 226.
HEADNOTE:
Government of India published a’scheme known as the "Export
Promotion Scheme" according to which the value of import
licence for raw materials in an industry depended upon the
value of specified varieties of goods exported by the
applicant for an import licence. It also empowered the
Controller of Imports and Exports under cl. 2 ’of Appendix
42 of the Import (Control) order 1955 to issue a license up
to 66-2/3 per cent of the export value in the case of Indian
artsilk sarees and up to 100 per cent in the case of other
Indian artsilk fabrics. The appellant firm R of exporters
and importers relying upon cl.2 of the Export Promotion
Scheme applied for an import licence equivalent to the value
of the goods it had exported and earned foreign exchange.
In view of certain malpractices the Government of India
suspended the "Export Promotion" scheme and set up a
committee for verification of the values of goods exported.
The Committee after scrutinising the firm’s claim found that
rates of some of the items could not be accepted as
reasonable, and recommended an import licence approximately
of the value of 45 per cent of the goods exported. The firm
R after making an infructuous demand for a licence for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
full value of the goods exported filed a writ petition.
They submitted that the Controller of Licences had
arbitrarily reduced the value of their import licence and
had thereby unlawfully infringed their fundamental right.
They also claimed that the Controller was bound to grant
licence under the Export Promotion Scheme for the full value
of the goods exported by them and in failing to do so had
practised discrimination
73
against them, because several other importers during the
identical period were given licences for the full value of
goods exported.
Held, that the fundamental right of a citizen to carry on
any occupation, trade or business under Art. 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution is not absolute; it is subject to reasonable
restrictions which may be imposed by the State in the
interest of the general public.
The right of the State to impose control in the larger
interest of the general public on imports has accordingly
not been denied; nor is the authority of the State to issue
the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 in exercise of the powers
conferred by the Imports and Exports (Control) Act providing
for imposition of restrictions by permitting import of
certain goods only in accordance with the licences or
customs permits granted by the Central Government, open to
challenge. The authority to grant or refuse to grant the
licence is conferred upon high officers of the State and the
grant of licence is governed by the Import Trade Control
Policy and detailed provisions are made setting out the
grounds on which licences may be refused, suspended or
cancelled and provision to afford a hearing before action is
taken is also made; thus the powers conferred under cl.3 of
the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 are not uncanalised or
arbitrary.
The power granted to the licensing authority to grant
licences only up to the maximum specified in cl.2 of the
appendix 42 is by itself not an unreasonable restriction,
nor will the notification directing scrutiny of all
applications amount to imposing an unreasonable restriction.
The clause invests the Controller with authority, it does
not impose an obligation upon him enforceable at the
instance of the exporter, to issue a licence for the amount
(subject to the maximum prescribed) claimed by the exporter.
The power is plainly discretionary and the orderd by the
Controller granting a licence only for 45% of the goods
exported does not infringe the fundamental right of the
petitioner under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by
imposing an unreasonable restriction.
Held, further that in the absence of evidence to show that
discriminatory treatment was made between the aggrieved
person and to persons similarly circumstanced, there can be
no violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution which confers a
guarantee against arbitrary discrimination between persons
similarly circumstanced-.
Held, also that where an application for writ of mandamus,
direction or order under Art. 226 of the
74
Constitution is dismissed by the High Court, the-only remedy
to the aggrieved person is to come up by appeal and he has
no right to be heard as an intervener.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1 of 1960.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India for the
enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, ’K.K. Jain and Ganpat Raj, for the
Petitioners.
C. K.Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, V.A. Saiyed
Mohamad and T. M. Sen, for the Respondents.
1961. August 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHAH, J.-Controls on exports and imports imposed as an
emergency measure during the last war in respect of certain
commodities were kept alive after the lapse of the Defence
of India Rules by the Emergency Provisions (Continuance)
Ordinance, 1946 which was later replaced by the Imports and
Exports (Control) Act,. 1947 ( 18 of 1947), by s.(3) of the
Act, the Central Government was authorised by order
published in the Official Gazette, to provide for
prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling, in all
cases or in specified classes of cases, and subject to such
exceptions if any, as may be made by or under the order,
inter alia the import, export, carriage xxx xxx of goods of
any specified description. By sub-sec(2) of s.3., it was
provided that all goods to which an order under sub-s.(1)
applied shall be deemed to be goods of which the import or
export has been prohibited or restricted under s.19 of the
Sea Customs Act. Exercising authority under s.3 of the
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the Central
Government issued notifications from time to time
prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling the export
and import of diverse commodities. By a consolidated order
dated
75
December 7, 1955, known as the Imports (Control) Order,
1955, restrictions on the import of certain goods were
imposed by el. 3 of the said order. By el. 3, it was
provided that save as otherwise, provided in the order, no
person shall import any goods of the description specified
in Schedule I, except under, and in accordance with, a
licence or a customs clearance permit granted by the Central
Government, or by an officer specified in Schedule II. For
implementing the scheme of controlling imports, diverse
provisions were made in cls. 3 to 11 of the Imports
(Control) Order.
The Government of India makes known its import policy every
six months by issuing in the Government Gazette the
procedure and the conditions for eligibility of licences and
for the grant of import licences. This policy is published
for the use of the public in a hand-book called the "Import
Trade Control Policy". The policy is obviously framed
having regard to requirements for home consumption of commo-
dities to be imported, the foreign currency situation and
the economy of the country as a whole.
By para 51 of the Import Trade Control Policy for the
licensing period October 1958 to March 1959, a scheme of
"Export Promotion" permitting imports depending upon the
value of specified varieties of goods exported by the impro-
per was devised. It was recited in that paragraph that in
certain items, the inter-relation between imports and
exports was direct and intimate and the ability to export
some manufactured goods depended largely on the facility
with which the exporter or the manufacturer could procure
the basic raw materials required in the manufacture. With a
view to promoting the export of such goods, a scheme was
therefore devised for the grant of special import licences
to
76
replace the imported raw material component of the product
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
exported or to provide an incentive for larger exports.
Artsilk yarn and artsilk fabrics were covered by the Export
Promotion Scheme. In Appendix 42, cl.2 of the Import Trade
Control Policy. for October 1958 to March 1959, it was
stated:
"With a view to stimulate exports of Indian
artsilk fabrics, sarees, garments, hosiery and
other artsilk manufactures, it has been
decided to grant import licences at the ports
under the Export Promotion Scheme for the
import of permissible varieties of artsilk
yarn to actual exporters upto the following
percentage of the rupee equivalent of foreign
exchange earned on the basis of the f. o. b.
value of The artsilk goods exported, or the
value assessed by customs, whichever is less.
(i) 66-2/3 per cent in the case of Indian
artsilk sarees,
(ii) 100 per cent in the case of other Indian
artsilk fabrics including Indian artsilk
hosiery goods."
The petitioners, M/s. Ram Chand Jagadish Chand are a firm
engaged in. business as exporters and importers. In the
period October 1958 to March 1959, the petitioners exported
to Singapore, Bush Shirt Cloth, Glass Nylon, Art silk Piece
Goods and Superior Class Nylon of the total C.I.F. value of
Rs. 7,10,817/-, and relying upon cl. (2) of the Export
Promotion Scheme as outlined in the Import Trade Control
Policy, called upon the Controller of Imports to issue
licences for artsilk yarn for Rs. 4,04,218.62 np. and Rs.
3,03,490.93 np. respectively for the months of February and
77
March 1959. The petitioners claimed that they had, pursuant
to the Export Promotion Scheme, exported artsilk goods to
Singapore and had earned net foreign exchange of the value
of Rs. 7,07,709.55 np. and that they were entitled to import
licences for artsilk yarn of that amount. In September
1959, the petitioners were informed by the Assistant
Controller of Imports and Exports that a consolidated
licence for the months of February and March, 1959 was
granted to them for import of artsilk goods of the value of
Rs. 3,19,354/-.
It appears that the Government of India, having come to
learn of certain malpractice by the importers of artsilk
yarn, while suspending the Export Promotion Scheme as from
March 9, 1959, announced that applications which were
pending with the port licensing authorities will be
scrutinised by a Committee and in May 1959, the Government
of India appointed a Committee for verification of the value
of good exported. The petitioners appeared before the
Committee and furnished documentary evidence in support of
their claim for 100% of the rupee equivalent of the cloth
exported. The Committee accepted as reasonable the rates at
which the exported "’Flock Printed Nylon Dyed" cloth was
exported by the petitioners, but in their view, the rates at
which ",Bush Shirt Cloth" was exported could not be accepted
as reasonable and for the purpose of the Export Promotion
Scheme, the value of that cloth should be computed at the
rate of Re. 1.50 np.- per yard of 36" width. The Controller
of licences accepted the recommendation of the Committee and
issued to the petitioners an import licence for Rs.
3,19,354/- only. The petitioners after making, an
in fructuous demand for a licence for the value of the goods
exported, filed this petition under Art. 32 of the
Constitution for a writ or direction in the nature of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
mandamus directing the Chief Controller of Imports and
,Exports to Avant to the petitioners an import.
78
licence for the months of February and March 1959 equivalent
to 100% of the goods exported by them in relevant previous
months and in the alternative, to issue a writ of certiorari
calling for the records and proceedings resulting in the
issue of a licence of the value of Rs. 3,19,354/- and for an
order quashing the same and granting to the petitioners a
licence for the full amount claimed by them. The
petitioners submitted that the Controller of licences had
arbitrarily reduced the value of their import licence under
the Export Promotion Scheme and had thereby unlawfully
infringed their fundamental right to carry on business.
They also claimed that the Controller was bound to grant
licence to import artsilk yarn under the Export Promotion
Scheme for the full value of the goods exported by them, and
in failing to do so, had practiced discrimination against
the petitioners, because several other importers of artsilk
yarn who were the petitioners’ rivals in trade during the
identical period were given licences for amounts "ranging
between 85 and 100 per cent of their exports". In paragraph
22 of their petition, the petitioners submitted a table
setting out the names of eight such exporters, the amount
and the percentages granted to such exporters.
The fundamental right of a citizen to carry on any
occupation, trade or business under Art. 19 (1)(g) of the
Constitution is not absolute : it is subject to reasonable
restrictions which may be imposed by the state in the
interests of the general public. The right of the State to
impose controls in the larger interest of the general public
on imports has accordingly not been denied: nor has the
authority of the ’State to issue the Imports (Control)
Order, 1955 in exercise of the powers conferred by the
Imports and Exports (Control) Act providing for imposition
of restrictions by permitting import of certain goods only
in accordance with,,licences or customs permits granted by
the
79
Central Government,, been challenged. It was suggested.
somewhat faintly by Mr. Viswanatha Sastri on behalf of the
petitioners that the power granted under c 1. (3) of the
Imports (Control) Order, 1955 was uncanalised power in the
matter of fixing percentages and to that extent, the
authority imposed an unreasonable restriction on the freedom
to carry on business. But the authority to grant or refuse
to grant licences is conferred upon high officers of the
State and the grant of licences is governed by the Import
Trade Control Policy which is issued from time to time and
detailed provisions are made in the Imports (Control) Order
getting ’out the grounds on which licences may be refused,
amended, suspended or cancelled (see cls. 6 to 9 of the
Order). Provision to afford a bearing to the licence before
action is taken under cls. 6 to 9 is also made. It cannot
therefore be said that the power conferred is uncanalised or
arbitrary.
The argument seriously canvassed by counsel for the
petitioners was that relying upon cl. 2 of appendix 42 of
the Import Trade Control Policy, the petitioners had
exported artsilk fabrics, and had earned foreign currency,
and they could not, except for good and adequate reasons, be
deprived of import licence to the full extent of 100% of the
value of the artsilk fabrics exported. The petitioners say
that they purchased the goods from various merchants and by
exporting those goods earned foreign exchange which was duly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
credited to their account by their bankers, and in reducing
the import licence to approximately 45% of the value of the
goods exported, the State has, by executive order, imposed
an unreasonable restriction upon their right to carry on
business. But under el. 2 of the Export Promotion Scheme as
outlined in appendix 42 in so far as it related to licences
for import of artsilk yarn, the Controller of Imports is
authorised to grant licences upto the percentages specified
in that clause : there is no right thereby
80
created to the exporter to obtain a licence for the full
value of the commodity exported. Under el. 2 of the, scheme
the Controller has the power to grant a licence for any
amount upto 100% of the rupee equivalent of the foreign
exchange earned on the basis of the F.O.B. value of the
goods exported. By that clause, the exporter is not given
the option to claim an import licence for any amount not
exceeding the value of the foreign exchange earned by export
of goods. The clause invests the Controller with authority,
it does not impose an obligation upon him enforceable at the
instance of the exporter, to issue a licence for the amount
(subject to the maximum prescribed. claimed by the exporter.
The power is plainly discretionary. It is true that the
discretion has to be exercised reasonably and not
arbitrarily. The, licensing authority would normally issue
an import licence for 100% of the value of the goods
exported, but having regard to special considerations such
as difficult foreign exchange position or other matters
which have a bearing on the general interest of the State,
import licences for a smaller percentage may be granted to
the exporters. But by the use of the expression "upto the
following percentage of the rupee equivalent" power to fix
arbitrarily a percentage of the value of the goods exported
for awarding an import licence is not granted.
In granting a licence to the petitioners for Rs. 3,19,354/-,
has the authority been exercised arbitrarily or is it
supported by some reasonbly discernible principle? Ram
Murth Sharma, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
in his affidavit stated that of the Export Promotion Scheme
wrongful advantage was taken by some exporters of artsilk
fabrics : it was found by the Government of India that
invoice values or artificial silk fabrics were inflated.
by the exporters by more than 100% of the value with the
object of exporting "speculative" commodities like
artificial
81
silk yarn. , Sharma stated that ",as against 381 thousand
yards of artificial silk fabrics exported during the period
January-June, 1957 at a value of about Rs. 456 thousand
i.e., at about Rs.2-0 L. per yard the merchants sought to
show the rise in price for the export of such goods during
October-March 1959 at Rs. 2-9-0 per yard so that for 986
thousand yards exported, the invoice value shown was 28,799
thousand rupees, even though the actual price of the goods
in the wholesale market had not at all risen to that extent
between those two periods. The index number of wholesale
price in India in respect of "silk and rayon" fabrics during
the month of June 1957 was 85 and during the month of March
1959 it rose to 95.7 only thus showing a rise of about 11%.
Against this rise, the rise in the price invoiced by the
exporters showed a rise of over 125% during the span of the
same period. This will clearly show that the aforesaid rise
was shown by merchants merely with a view to get licences
for higher value for the import of speculative item like
"Art Silk Yarn." Relying upon this evidence, counsel for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
Union contended that this perversion of the Export Promotion
Scheme had serious repercussions on the foreign exchange
position, and the scheme was suspended by notification dated
March 6, 195 , and government directed that the pending
applications for import licences for artsilk yarn be
scrutinised by a Committee appointed in that behalf. The
Committee scrutinised the cases of 1106 parties including
the petitioners, and the petitioners were given a, licence
for Rs. 3,19,354/-, and by reducing the value of’ the import
licence, no fundamental right of the petitioners under Art.
19 of the Constitution was infringed.
A scrutiny of the applications for licences in view of the
misuse of. the Export Promotion Scheme and granting of
licences on the result of such scrutiny cannot be regarded
as imposing an
82
unreasonable restriction. The State is as much concerned
with earning foreign exchange as maintaining and
consolidating its export trade. if a large quantity of goods
be dumped at excessive
prices foreign markets to meet a temporary demand in the
ultimate result the export trade of the State may suffer.
If taking advantage of temporary demands in the foreign
market, the exporters charge excessive prices which axe not
commensurate with reasonable profits on the real value of
the goods and seek to invest the profits earned, in
speculative commodities thereby endangering the internal
economy of the country, the State may be justified in taking
steps to prevent the exporters from obtaining advantage of
such excessive profits by refusing to afford facilities for
importing goods to the exporters who seek to rely upon the
export Value of the goods at inflated rates., The affidavit
of Sharma shows that in a number of cases,, the importing
firm in the foreign country was only a "’sister concerns of
the exporting house, and the exporters adopted the expedient
of inflating the price with the object of adjusting the
excess value received by them. It appears therefore that
some exporters under cover of the Export Promotion Scheme by
inflating the prices were found not only to import
speculative varieties of goods for very much larger values
than the real prices justified, but were suspected by the
authorities even to repatriate foreign assets without
disclosing the same to the State as required by law. It
cannot therefore be said that the power granted to the
licensing authorities to grant licences only upto the maximum spec
ified in el. 2 of the Scheme is by itself an
unreasonable restriction; nor will the notification
directing scrutiny of all applications amount to imposing an
unreasonable restriction.
Counsel for the petitioners however submitted that the
Controller had placed no evidence on the record that the
petitioners have, for the goods
83
purchased by them in the Indian market, not paid M.
7,67,709.55 np. or that any part thereof represented
foreign assets intended to be repatriated contrary to law.
Counsel submitted that M/s. V. M. S. Abdul Razak & Company
to whom the goods were consigned are not a "’Sister concern"
of the petitioners and that in the affidavit of the Deputy
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports it is not denied
bat the petitioners bad received the full value for which
the goods were exported by them.
But in considering the case of the petitioners, the
Committee observed :
"The party has purchased Bush Shirt Cloth from
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
J. C. Vakaria & Sons, Govardhandas Iswardass
International Trading Agency, Agwarwla
Brothers and Calcutta Silk Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd. Rates vary from Rs. 3.87 to Rs. 3.92. x
x x x neither the purchase vouchers nor the
export invoices contain any description nor
give any idea as to whether the material was
Nylon, Rayon, Nynon, etc."
The committee also observed that the petitioners were "not
able to produce adequate justification of the prices of Art
Silk Bush Shirting Cloth. Samples cannot be linked with the
relative purchase vouchers or export invoices." They then
pointed out that the correspondence with M/s. Abdul Razak &
Company did not give any "justification nor contained’ any
description to link the goods with the materials sent," and
in the light of these findings, the Committee recommended
that. the value of bush shirt’ cloth for the purposes of
import licence be calculated at the rate-of Re. 1. 50 nP.
per ’Yard. It is somewhat- unfortunate that the
Committed have not stated-in the reasons given by them that
Re.- 1. 50 nP. was the prevailing: market rate in respect of
Bush Shirt Cloth at the time of the export in the Indian
market. But in paragraph 22 of the respondents’ affidavit,
it- is stated that "the petitioner firm has behalf granted
licence equal to
84
100% of the value which has been arrived at as reasonable
value of the exports effected by the firm."
The petitioners alleged that the decision of the Committee
was arbitrary the licensing authority contends that the
decision was made after ascertaining the reasonable value in
the Indian market at the material time of the goods exported
by the petitioners. The petitioners have not placed before
the court any independent evidence to show that the current
market rate of "bush shirt cloth" which was exported,
substantially exceeded the rate of Re. 1. 50 nP. per yard of
36" width. In the circumstances, we would not be justified
in assuming that the Committee made an arbitrary decision in
arriving at the value of the bush shirt cloth exported for
the purpose of recommending the grant of import licence.
The contention that the order passed by the Controller
granting a licence only for 45% of the value of the goods
exported infringes the fundamental right of the petitioners
under Art. 19 (1) (g) by imposing an unreasonable
restriction cannot therefore be sustained.
Does the fact that the petitioners have been granted licence
approximately for 45% of the total value of the goods
exported amount to discrimination entitling them to
protection of Art. 14 of the Constitution ? Under the Export
Promotion Scheme, the petitioners have exported artsilk
goods of the value of Rs. 7,07,709.55.nP. and may in the
normal course have been entitled to import licence for 100%
of the value of the goods exported unless there was a
reduction in the value of the licence for imports on account
of certain circumstances such as general deterioration of
the foreign exchange position or necessity to conserve a
particular currency or other circumstances justifying a
departure from the maxima set opt in cl. 2 of
85
appendix 42 of the Export Promotion Scheme. The reduction
may also be justified on grounds personal to the petitioners
or to a, group to which they belonged, Any malpractice or
tinder-hand dealing may warrant such a reduction.
It was the case of the respondents that many exporters were
guilty of malpractices and with a view either to speculate
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
in artsilk goods or to repatriate unlawfully foreign assets,
the value of the goods exported was unduly inflated. In the
order passed by the Committee appointed by the Government of
India, dealing with the case of the petitioners, it was
observed that the petitioners had business relations with
certain firms and that the rates at which bush shirt cloth
were purchased varied from Rs. 3.87 to Rs. 3.92 nP. The
Committee was not satisfied that the documentary evidence
produced by the petitioners related to the goods exported by
them. These findings disclosed that, in the view of the
Committee, there was reason to believe that the claim of the
petitioners that they had purchased goods approximately for
the prices at which they were exported, was not made out.
The Committee accordingly recommended that the value of
"bush shirt cloth" should be computed at the rate of Rs.
1.50 nP. per yard. It is true that there is no definite
evidence on the record indicating that was the current
market rate, but the court may be justified in holding that
the members of the Committee who were vitally concerned with
the trade in artsilk goods were conversant with the current
market rates of the cloth which was exported by the
petitioners.
Counsel for the Union has placed before us in the course of
the hearing the report of the Committee in respect of seven
out of the eight exporters who the petitioners claimed had
been given import licence for the full value of the exports.
The report of the Committee with regard to M/s. Rajasthan
Exporters I and Importers, Calcutta
86
is not placed before us on the plea that.,-it is not
immediately available. On a perusal ’.of the report of the
Committee with regard to, the other exporters, it may be
stated that the claim of the petitioners that Raghunath Rai
Piyarilal were given import licence for the full value of
the goods exported is not correct. It appears from the
record that only 40% of ’the F.O.B. value was to be taken
for "Glass, Nylon dved" exported in respect of application
No. 36. Similar larly, in respect of application No. 35,
40% (if the F.O.B. value was to be taken for the purpose of
granting import licences. It is true that in the cases of
the other importers Premsukhdass Sitaram, Indian Exporters
and Importers Corporation, M/s. Universal Watch Emporium,
M/s. Jawahar Knitting Hosiery, M/s. Vastralaya Ltd. and
M/s. Agarwala Trading Co., Ltd., the Committee have
recommended acceptance of the purchase prices submitted by
the exporters in granting import licences. It may,
therefore, be assumed that these importers were, given
licence for 1000% of the export value of the goods. But the
Committee have given reasons which appear to be prima facie
good for accepting the claims of these exporters’ If, on the
materials placed before. them, the Committee were
satisfied that there, was some misconduct or under-hand
dealing on the part of the petitioners, or that the evidence
led before them justified the Committee in holding that the
goods exported were not of the value’ claimed by the
petitioners in their invoices, an order recommending that
import licence may be granted for the value of bush shirt
cloth computed on the basis of Re.1.50 nP. per yard does
not. amount to discriminatory treatment of the petitioners.
Article 14 confers a guarantee of the equal protection of
the law-a guarantee against arbitrary discrimination between
persons similarly circumstanced... On the materials placed
before the Committee.-.there. evidence to show that the
record produced by the
87
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
petitioners was unsatisfactory ; they were not satisfied
that the prices which the petitioners said they had paid for
purchasing the goods were in truth paid. If there was
evidence to show that in respect of other persons who were
in the opinion of the Committee found also to have inflated
the prices ’in the manner adopted by :,the-- petitioners
and still the Controller had granted import licences to
those persons for the full amount of the.. export value or a
percentage substantially in excess of the percentage for
which import licence was granted to the petitioners, a case of discrimin
ation could have been made out ; but in the
absence of such evidence, we do not think that any case of
discrimination is made out.
The petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
The application filed by M/s. M. Shaams and Company for
intervention is dismissed, because Miscellaneous Application
No. 264 of 1960 which was filed by the applicants in the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay for a writ of mandamus,
direction or order under Art. 226 of the Constitution has
been dismissed by the High Court and the remedy applicants
is to file an appeal to. this Court.
Petition dismissed.
88