Import rights, writ jurisdiction and finality of adjudication: public notice and fresh penalty action held ineffective, with arbitrary customs conditions invalid.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was upheld because the petitioner's business and office were within the court's limits and part of the cause of action arose there; availability of an appeal under the Customs Act did not bar writ relief. A public notice could not override an Open General Licence or extinguish import rights already attached to the contract and licence, so the import entitlement was protected. After the earlier adjudication, the customs authority became functus officio, making the fresh show-cause notice and personal penalty order without jurisdiction. The confiscation and re-export conditions were also found arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 14 because similarly placed importers had been treated differently.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 and whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative remedy; (ii) whether the public notice could alter the Open General Licence position and defeat rights said to have accrued under the import contract and licence; (iii) whether the additional show-cause notice and the personal penalty order were without jurisdiction after the earlier adjudication; and (iv) whether the impugned confiscation and re-export conditions were arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 and whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The petitioner's business and office were within the Court's territorial limits and the effect of the impugned customs order was felt there. A part of the cause of action was therefore held to arise within jurisdiction. The existence of an appellate remedy under Section 129A of the Customs Act did not oust writ jurisdiction, as the rule of alternative remedy is only a self-imposed restraint and not an absolute bar.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held maintainable and within jurisdiction, and the plea of alternative remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the public notice could alter the Open General Licence position and defeat rights said to have accrued under the import contract and licence.

Analysis: The import item was held to remain covered by the statutory Open General Licence order. A public notice of administrative character could not amend, curtail, or delete what had been granted under a statutory regime. The licence was also treated as governed by the policy in force when issued, and revalidation did not destroy the entitlement already attached to it. The Court held that the contract and licence conferred enforceable import rights.

Conclusion: The public notice was ineffective to take away the petitioner's import entitlement, and the import under the contract and licence was held lawful.

Issue (iii): Whether the additional show-cause notice and the personal penalty order were without jurisdiction after the earlier adjudication.

Analysis: Once the earlier adjudication order had been passed and communicated, the authority was held to have become functus officio in relation to that adjudication. The additional notice seeking to reopen the matter for personal penalty was held impermissible, and the consequential penalty order was treated as an unauthorised re-adjudication.

Conclusion: The additional show-cause notice and the personal penalty order were held to be without jurisdiction and illegal.

Issue (iv): Whether the impugned confiscation and re-export conditions were arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Analysis: The Court found that similar relief for re-export had been granted to another importer in comparable circumstances without imposing such conditions. Treating similarly placed importers differently was held to be arbitrary. The confiscation and conditions were therefore found unsustainable when measured against the equality guarantee.

Conclusion: The impugned confiscation and the conditions attached to re-export were held arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the petitioner's challenge, sustained the validity of the import entitlement, and quashed the confiscation and penalty orders with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory import entitlement and licence cannot be curtailed by an administrative public notice, and once adjudication is concluded the customs authority cannot reopen the matter through a fresh penalty proceeding; arbitrary differential treatment in similar customs situations is invalid.

---