Interim import authorisations under the Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme may issue on a strong prima facie case with revenue safeguards.

A strong prima facie case justified interim issuance of authorisations under the Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme after the petitioner had completed the required formalities and similar relief had been granted on comparable facts. The Court protected the revenue by requiring an undertaking to pay customs duty if the writ petition ultimately failed. Third-party intervention was refused because the dispute lay only between the petitioner and the Union of India; applicants whose business may be affected by the scheme were neither necessary nor proper parties and could not be impleaded merely on that basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, on a prima facie assessment, the petitioner was entitled to a direction for issuance of the necessary authorisations under the Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme on furnishing an undertaking to pay customs duty if it ultimately failed in the writ petition; (ii) whether the applicants in the intervention applications were necessary or proper parties entitled to be impleaded in the writ petition.

Issue (i): entitlement to a direction for issuance of the necessary authorisations under the Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme on furnishing an undertaking.

Analysis: The petitioner had completed the formalities required under the Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme, and authorisations had earlier been issued on similar facts. On that basis, the Court found a strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. The relief was moulded by protecting the revenue interest through an undertaking that customs duty would be paid if the writ petition ultimately failed.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to interim issuance of the necessary authorisations, subject to furnishing the undertaking.

Issue (ii): whether the applicants in the intervention applications were necessary or proper parties entitled to be impleaded in the writ petition.

Analysis: The dispute under the Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme was held to lie only between the petitioner and the Union of India, since the scheme was framed by the Central Government and the petitioner sought to avail it. Any grievance that the scheme affected the applicants' business had to be pursued by challenging the scheme itself, not by intervening in the writ petition. The applicants were therefore treated as strangers to the lis and not necessary or proper parties.

Conclusion: The intervention applications were rejected and impleadment was refused.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted to the petitioner under the import authorization scheme, while the third-party intervention attempts were declined.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who is neither a necessary nor a proper party to a writ challenging implementation of a governmental scheme cannot be impleaded merely because the scheme may affect its business; where a strong prima facie case is shown, interim directions may be issued with safeguards to protect the revenue.

---