Administrative penalty cannot stand against an unvacated tribunal ruling, though fresh action may follow pending reference proceedings.

An administrative penalty and debarment for rapeseed imports could not be sustained where the impugned order conflicted with an operative CEGAT view interpreting the Import-Export Policy 1985-88, particularly para 197(2) read with paras 70(2), 75(1), 76 and the relevant appendices. The tribunal's earlier decision, not yet set aside when the writ petition was filed, required the authorities to defer contrary adverse action. However, because the underlying tribunal ruling remained under challenge in reference proceedings, the authorities were left free to proceed afresh after those proceedings concluded, subject to hearing the petitioner before any final adverse action.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty and debarment imposed for import of rapeseed under the Import-Export Policy 1985-88 could be sustained on the interpretation of para 197(2), read with paras 70(2), 75(1) and 76 and the relevant appendices, and whether the writ petitioner was entitled to relief pending final determination in related reference proceedings.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether rapeseed, though a canalised item, required prior approval of the Chief Commissioner of Imports and Exports under para 197(2). The interpretation adopted by the adjudicating authorities differed from the view earlier taken by the CEGAT, which had held that the import was permissible without such approval on the combined reading of the relevant policy provisions. Since that CEGAT decision had not been set aside as on the date of the writ petition, the contrary view adopted in the impugned order could not be sustained. At the same time, the underlying CEGAT decision itself remained under challenge in reference proceedings, so final adverse action was kept open to be taken after the outcome of those proceedings, with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The penalty and debarment order were set aside in favour of the petitioner, while the respondents were left free to proceed afresh if the pending reference proceedings ultimately warranted adverse action.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the impugned administrative action could not stand against the then-operative CEGAT view, but the authorities retained liberty to act again after the final outcome of the pending reference proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative order contrary to an unvacated appellate tribunal decision cannot be sustained merely because that decision is under further challenge; final adverse action must await the ultimate outcome of the pending proceedings.

---