Court quashes show cause notices, finding them misconceived. Petitioners not liable for license contravention.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the show cause notices. The court found the notices to be misconceived and lacking legal basis. The petitioners, as actual users of the imported tallow, were not involved in any abetment of license contravention. The court awarded no costs in the case.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to legality of show cause notices under article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding import of tallow for manufacturing soaps.

Analysis:
The petitioners, engaged in soap manufacturing, challenged show cause notices issued by respondent no. 2 regarding the import of tallow for soap production. The petitioners had been using imported tallow for soap manufacturing since 1948. A public notice in June 1981 amended the import policy to include tallow of any animal origin, leading to imports of beef tallow and animal tallow. The petitioners agreed to purchase imported tallow after clearance by customs authorities, using a "high seas basis" to avoid sales tax. The show cause notices alleged unauthorized import of beef tallow and abetment by the petitioners. The notices invoked clause 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 for proposed action under clause 8. The petitioners challenged these notices in court, arguing they were not involved in the import process and were entitled to purchase imported tallow as actual users.

The respondent no. 2 issued show cause notices under clause 8 without specifying the contravened sub-clause, possibly relying on sub-clause (2) which pertains to non-compliance with license conditions. The court found the claim that the petitioners abetted license contravention to be unsustainable. The court noted that the term "abetment" as defined in the General Clauses Act and Indian Penal Code involves instigation or participation in the offense. The court emphasized that purchasing tallow after customs clearance did not constitute abetment. The court rejected the argument to leave the determination to respondent no. 2, as the notices were issued without proper authority. The court held that the show cause notices lacked jurisdiction and were to be quashed.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the show cause notices. The court found the notices to be misconceived and lacking legal basis. The petitioners, as actual users of the imported tallow, were not involved in any abetment of license contravention. The court awarded no costs in the case.

---