False import licence claims and unauthorised imports justified penalty where no jurisdictional flaw in discretion was shown.

Import licences obtained on a false statement about past consumption, followed by imports beyond the truthful entitlement, justified separate penal action. The petitioners later conceded that the licence applications were based on local purchases rather than imported materials, and the competent authority had already cancelled the licences. The appellate authority considered the extent of imports, the value of goods left unutilised, and the approximate value of unaccounted imports, and treated the matter as one for discretionary assessment of penalty. No legal or jurisdictional infirmity in that exercise was shown in writ jurisdiction, so interference was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imposition of a penalty for obtaining import licences on a false basis and importing goods in excess of the truthful entitlement warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioners had secured import licences on the basis of a false statement regarding past consumption and later conceded that the applications were founded on local purchases rather than imported materials. The competent authority had already cancelled the licences, yet separate penal action was also taken for the misstatement and the resulting unauthorised imports. The appellate authority examined the extent of imports, the value of goods left unutilised, and the approximate value of unaccounted imports, and treated the matter as one calling for a discretionary assessment of penalty rather than a case for annulment. In writ jurisdiction, no legal or jurisdictional infirmity was shown in the exercise of that discretion.

Conclusion: Interference with the penalty order was not warranted and the challenge failed.

---