Supreme Court Allows Union of India in Import Policy Dispute — Canalised Items Cannot Be Imported Under Additional Licences. Court Clarifies that Canalised Items are Restricted to Public Sector Importation Under Import Policy 1985-88.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from the refusal of Customs authorities to clear palm kernel fatty acid imported by M/s Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. under an additional licence. The respondents purchased the goods on high seas from a firm that had imported them based on a licence issued following a Supreme Court order. The Customs authorities contended that the goods were canalised items, which could not be imported under additional licences. The respondents challenged this in the Bombay High Court, which allowed the clearance. The Union of India appealed, arguing that the High Court's decision contradicted previous Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court analyzed the Import Policy 1985-88, clarifying that canalised items could only be imported through public sector agencies unless explicitly permitted otherwise. The court concluded that the palm kernel fatty acid was a canalised item and could not be imported under the additional licence. The court also noted that the respondents were aware of the legal position when they purchased the goods. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and ruled in favor of the Union of India.

Headnote

A) Import Policy - Canalised Items - Interpretation of Import Policy regarding canalised items - Import Policy 1985-88, Appendix 5, Item 9 - The court held that canalised items could not be imported under additional licences as per the Import Policy 1985-88, and the respondents were not entitled to import palm kernel fatty acid, which was a canalised item. The court emphasized that the importation of such items directly by holders of additional licences is banned (Paras 779-780).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondents were entitled to import palm kernel fatty acid under additional licences despite it being a canalised item.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Union of India, set aside the High Court's order, and ruled that the respondents could not import palm kernel fatty acid under additional licences as it was a canalised item.

Law Points

  • Import Policy interpretation
  • canalised items
  • additional licences
  • Export House Certificates
  • actual user status
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1986 LawText (SC) (09) 13

Civil Appeal No. 3418 of 1986

1986-09-12

Sabyasachi Mukharji, R.S. Pathak

1987 AIR 175, 1986 SCR (3) 771, 1986 SCC (4) 260

A.K. Ganguli, Sushma Relan, Soli J. Sorabjee, J.B. Dadachanji, R. Narain, Mrs. A.K. Verma, D.N. Mishra, Aditya Narayan, Harish N. Salve

Union of India

M/s Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd and Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge against Customs authorities' refusal to clear imported goods.

Remedy Sought

Clearance of palm kernel fatty acid imported under additional licence.

Filing Reason

Customs authorities denied clearance based on the classification of goods as canalised items.

Previous Decisions

High Court allowed clearance, which was contested by the Union of India.

Issues

Entitlement to import canalised items under additional licences Interpretation of Import Policy regarding canalised items

Submissions/Arguments

Respondents argued that they were actual users entitled to import under additional licences. Union of India contended that canalised items could not be imported under additional licences.

Ratio Decidendi

Canalised items cannot be imported under additional licences as per the Import Policy 1985-88; the court clarified the interpretation of the policy regarding the importation of such items.

Judgment Excerpts

Canalised items are those items which are ordinarily open to import only through a public sector agency. The goods in question which were sought for by the respondents fall under item 9 Part of Appendix 5 which is the canalised item and such cannot be allowed to be imported against additional licence.

Procedural History

The respondents filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the Customs authorities' decision. The Single Judge permitted clearance, which was affirmed by the Division Bench. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Import Policy: 1985-88, Appendix 5, Item 9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Revision Against Appellate Order in Succession Act Case — Remands for Fresh Consideration of Application Under Section 383 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. Appellate Court's Failure to Consider Evidence and Give Reasons Cons...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Petitioners in Agricultural Income-tax Challenge — Legislative Competence Affirmed.