Import licence discretion and anti-misuse scrutiny sustained; reduced export benefit found neither unreasonable nor discriminatory.

A bounded import-licensing scheme that allowed discretion up to a prescribed maximum did not create an enforceable right to the full export value. Scrutiny of applications based on evidence of inflated export values and misuse of the export promotion scheme was treated as a non-arbitrary measure justified by public interest and foreign exchange considerations, so the reduced licence did not violate Article 19(1)(g). No Article 14 breach was shown because there was no reliable material that truly similarly situated exporters, including those with comparable inflation or misconduct, were treated more favourably. The licensing action was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refusal to grant an import licence for the full export value and grant of a reduced licence under the export promotion scheme imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade or business; (ii) Whether the grant of a reduced licence to the petitioners amounted to discrimination violating equal protection.

Issue (i): Whether refusal to grant an import licence for the full export value and grant of a reduced licence under the export promotion scheme imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade or business.

Analysis: The licensing scheme under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 vested discretion in the Controller to grant licences up to the prescribed maximum and did not create an enforceable right to obtain a licence for the full export value. The restriction was not uncontrolled or arbitrary, and the scrutiny of applications after evidence of inflation of export values and misuse of the scheme was treated as a measure justified by the public interest and foreign exchange considerations.

Conclusion: The reduction of the licence did not infringe Article 19(1)(g) and was not an unreasonable restriction.

Issue (ii): Whether the grant of a reduced licence to the petitioners amounted to discrimination violating equal protection.

Analysis: Article 14 forbids arbitrary discrimination between persons similarly situated. The Committee found the petitioners' documentary support unsatisfactory and did not accept the invoiced value of the exported goods in full. In the absence of reliable material showing that other similarly placed exporters, found guilty of comparable inflation or misconduct, were treated more favourably, no case of unequal treatment was established.

Conclusion: No violation of Article 14 was made out.

Final Conclusion: The petition was held to be unsustainable on both the claimed constitutional grounds, and the impugned licensing action was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a licensing scheme confers a bounded administrative discretion to grant import benefits up to a maximum, and the authority applies a non-arbitrary scrutiny based on material indicating misuse or inflated valuation, reduction of the benefit does not amount to an unconstitutional restraint or discriminatory treatment absent proof of unequal treatment between truly similarly situated persons.

---