1974 (4) TMI 99 - SC - Customs

Court upholds import license rejection based on policy compliance, no violation of fundamental rights

ANDHRA INDUSTRIAL WORKS, AP. Versus CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND ORS.

The Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the delay in disposal of import license applications was not undue, the rejection of applications was ... abuses of import quota requires proper scrutiny of the various applications for import licence' no merit in the objection that the writ petition on behalf of the 'firm' is not maintainable. Issues:1. Delay in disposal of import license applications.2. Legality of rejecting import license applications.3. Maintainability of the writ petition.4. Violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19.5. Impact of Import Trade Control Policy on import license applications.Analysis:1. Delay in Disposal of Import License Applications:The petitioner-firm filed four applications for import licenses, but the authorities did not dispose of them promptly. The High Court directed the authorities to consider the applications expeditiously, but there was a significant delay. The Respondent finally rejected the applications citing reasons related to the misuse of imported materials. However, the delay was not deemed undue or motivated by bad faith, especially considering the ongoing criminal proceedings against the petitioners.2. Legality of Rejecting Import License Applications:The Respondent rejected the import license applications based on existing instructions that prohibited the import of certain materials for the end use in automobile parts. The petitioners challenged these rejections, arguing that they were entitled to the licenses as per the Import Policy. However, the Court found that the Import Trade Control Policy had been amended, prohibiting the import of materials in question for utilization in automobile parts, rendering the rejection valid.3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:The Respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the firm. They argued that the firm, as a collective entity of partners, could not avail of Article 19(1)(g). However, the Court ruled that the objections were not valid, as the firm represented all the partners who were Indian citizens.4. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19:The petitioners contended that the rejection of their import license applications violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. They argued that the restrictions imposed were unconstitutional and unreasonable. However, the Court held that the restrictions were imposed in the public interest and did not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners.5. Impact of Import Trade Control Policy on Import License Applications:The Court emphasized that an applicant does not have an absolute right to an import license based on an Import Trade Policy. The Policy can be changed or altered by administrative orders. The Court referred to a previous case where it was held that an applicant does not have a vested right to an import license based on a specific policy. In this case, the amended Import Trade Control Policy prohibited the grant of licenses for the materials in question, making the rejection of the applications valid.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petitions, stating that the delay in disposal was not undue, the restrictions were imposed in the public interest, and there was no violation of fundamental rights. The rejection of the import license applications was found to be lawful based on the amended Import Trade Control Policy.