UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS Vs. M/S. RAJ GROW IMPEX LLP &amp; ORS
judiciously and with due regard to the relevant factors. 92. In addition to the general principles for exercise of discretion, as discussed hereinbefore, a few features specific to the matters of interim relief need special mention. It is rather elementary that in the matters of grant of interim relief, satisfaction of the Court only about existence of prima facie case in favour of the suitor is not enough. The other elements i.e., balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury, are not of empty formality and carry their own relevance; and while exercising its discretion in the matter of interim relief and adopting a particular course, the Court needs to weigh the risk of injustice, if ultimately the decision of main matter runs counter to the course being adopted at the time of granting or refusing the interim relief. We may usefully refer to the relevant principle stated in the decision of Chancery Division in Films Rover International Ltd. and Ors. v. Cannon Film Sales Ltd.: [1986] 3 All ER 772 as under: - ….The principal dilemma about the grant of interlocutory injunctions, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is that there is by definition a risk that the court may make the wrong decision, in the sense of granting an injunction to a party who fails to establish his right at the trial (or would fail if there was a trial) or alternatively, in failing to grant an injunction to a party who succeeds (or would succeed) at trial. A fundamental principle is therefore that the court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been wrong in the sense I have described. The guidelines for the grant of both kinds of interlocutory injunctions are derived from this principle. (emphasis in bold supplied) 92.1. While referring to various expositions in the said decision, this Court, in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors.: (1990) 2 SCC 117 observed as under: - 16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. 17. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion. (emphasis in bold supplied) 93. In keeping with the principles aforesaid, one of the simple questions to be adverted to at the threshold stage in the present cases was, as to whether the importers (writ petitioners) were likely to suffer irreparable injury in case the interim relief was denied and they were to ultimately succeed in the writ petitions. A direct answer to this question would have made it clear that their injury, if at all, would have been of some amount of loss of profit, which could always be measured in monetary terms and, usually, cannot be regarded as an irreparable one. Another simple but pertinent question would have been concerning the element of balance of convenience; and a simple answer to the same would have further shown that the inconvenience which the importers were going to suffer because of the notifications in question was far lesser than the inconvenience which the appellants were going to suffer (with ultimate impact on national interest) in case operation of the notifications was stayed and thereby, the markets of India were allowed to be flooded with excessive quantity of the said imported peas/pulses. 94. In fact, the repercussion of the stay orders passed in the earlier years were duly noticed by this Court in Agricas (supra); and unfortunately, more or less same adverse consequences had been hovering over the markets because of the imports made under the cover of the interim orders passed in relation to the notifications dated 29.03.2019. This, in our view, was not likely to happen if the material factors relating to balance of convenience and irreparable injury were taken into account while dealing with the prayers for interim relief in the writ petitions. As noticed, this Court had, in unequivocal terms, declared in Agricas (supra), that the importers cannot be said to be under any bona fide belief in effecting the imports under the cover of interim orders; and they would face the consequences in law. It gets, perforce, reiterated that all this was avoidable if the implications were taken into account before granting any interim relief in these matters. 95. We need not expand the comments in regard to the matters relating to the grant or refusal of interim relief and would close this discussion while reiterating the principles noticed above. Summation
1[ds]51. As noticed, the respondent-importers approached the High Court with the grievance that the goods were not being released despite the orders-in-original dated 28.08.2020 having been passed in their favour; and they having made the payments (in whole in the case ofand partially in the case of) and having obtained OOC. During the pendency of matters in the High Court, the Commissioner passed the orders dated 01.10.2020 in exercise of his power under Section 129D(2) and then, it was suggested before the High Court on behalf of the Department that the writ petitions were rendered infructuous because of the said orders dated 01.10.2020.52. A close look at the impugned order dated 15.10.2020 makes it clear that the High Court dealt with the issues before it in three major segments: (i) as regards the nature of jurisdiction under Section 129D(2) of the Customs Act; (ii) as regards the propriety in passing of the orders dated 01.10.2020 by the Commissioner and tenability of the grounds stated therein; and (iii) as regards the prayer for release of the goods.53. Much has been said in these matters regarding the exercise of power by the Commissioner under Section 129D(2) of the Customs Act. The High Court proceeded to observe in the impugned order dated 15.10.2020 that the Commissioners orders dated 01.10.2020 were termed as review orders but the jurisdiction conferred by Section 129D(2) was that of suo motu revision and not that of review; and in that regard, the High Court particularly referred to the expressions legality or propriety occurring in the provision.53.2. For clarification, we deem it appropriate to observe that such enactments dealing with several areas of commerce and fiscal implications, like the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Excise Act, 1944(Hereinafter also referred to as the Central Excise Act.), do carry akin provisions reserving a residual power in the highest controlling authority of the Department, apart from the appellate powers of the departmental Appellate Authority or the Appellate Tribunal and apart from the powers of revision of the Central Government. Such residual power, as conferred by Section 129D of the Customs Act or Section 35E of Central Excise Act, is essentially to serve the purpose that the highest controlling authority of the Department (or a Committee of such highest authorities) satisfies itself as to the legality and propriety of any decision taken by the subordinate authority and, in case it finds any points arising from the decision in question, to direct the authority passing such order or any other subordinate authority to apply to the appellate forum for determination of such points/questions. In the scheme of the Customs Act, the power of revision is reserved for the Central Government, as per Section 129DD thereof. Similar power of revision in the Central Government could be seen in Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act. Thus, in the scheme and on the purpose of these enactments, it cannot be said that such residual power, of requiring the matter to be taken up before the appellate forum, is that of revision stricto sensu. However, it does not appear necessary to delve further on this aspect in this judgement because, as noticed, it is not in dispute that the Commissioner could have exercised such power under Section 129D of the Customs Act. In fact, we are unable to comprehend as to what precisely was the outcome of the detailed discussion by the High Court concerning the nature of power under Section 129D(2) because it had not been the finding that the orders dated 01.10.2020 were suffering from any want of jurisdiction or if the Commissioner, while passing the said orders, transgressed the bounds of his authority.54.1. Coming to the question of propriety in passing of the orders dated 01.10.2020 by the said Commissioner despite being aware of the pendency of the writ petitions in the High Court, in our view, the comments of the High Court, even when not incorrect in general application, do not appear apt and apposite to the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. In other words, though we are at one with the High Court that, ordinarily, when the matter is sub judice in the higher forum and that too before the Constitutional Court, the executive authorities should not attempt to bring about a new state of affairs without taking permission from the Court and/or bringing the relevant facts to the notice of the Court. However, even in this regard, before pronouncing on the impropriety on the part of an executive authority who had done anything without prior information to the Court or without taking Courts permission, all the relevant surroundings factors are also required to be examined so as to find as to whether such an action was calculated at interference with the administration of justice or was a bona fide exercise of power in the given circumstances.54.2. In the present case, though the High Court had issued notice in the writ petitions on 25.09.2020 and placed the petitions on 06.10.2020 but, it was clear on the face of record that the DGFT was taking serious exception to the orders-in-original dated 28.08.2020 and it was being asserted that the said orders were in the teeth of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Agricas (supra). Indisputably, the Commissioner had available with him three months time to pass the order under Section 129D(2) and thereby to ensure taking up of the matter against the orders- in-original dated 28.08.2020 by the Appellate Authority but, the importers preferred the writ petitions questioning the communication of DGFT and the denial of release of goods; and sought mandamus for such release. Such a prayer for mandamus was effectively a prayer for execution of the orders-in-original dated 28.08.2020. The High Court found it unjustified on the part of the Department to suggest that the writ petitions were rendered infructuous because of the orders dated 01.10.2020; and to this extent, we are again at one with the High Court because, on the strength of any order passed by the Commissioner during the pendency of the writ petitions, it could not have been claimed that the Department, by its own actions, made the writ petitions meaningless. However, such a submission on the part of the respondents of the writ petition, even if unwarranted, could not have taken the worth and value out of orders dated 01.10.2020; and, at the same time, the High Court could not have ignored the other material circumstances.54.3. One of the fundamental and material circumstance, which the High Court totally omitted to consider, was that the writ petitions were filed as if seeking execution of the orders-in-original and that if the writ, as prayed for, was to be issued and the goods were to be released, nothing much on merits was to be left for examination by the Appellate Authority; and if, for any reason, the orders-in-original were to be interfered with at a later stage in the appellate forum, irreparable damage would have been done because the goods would have been released for the domestic market. (As noticed, it has indeed happened to a large extent in present cases, with release of a substantial quantity of goods of the respondent- importers).54.4. The purpose of our comments foregoing is that even while the High Court was right in questioning the fact that the Commissioner chose to pass the order when the matter was sub judice, the High Court missed out the relevant feature that the importers had preferred the writ petitions essentially to pre-empt any further proceedings by the statutory authority concerned under the Customs Act. In other words, the invocation of writ jurisdiction by the importers was itself questionable.55. Noticeable it is that the High Court, even after making some scathing comments on the question of propriety against the Commissioner, took up the points stated in the orders dated 01.10.2020 one by one and indicated its views that the points so raised were baseless and/or untenable. However, the High Court was also conscious of the fact that the said orders dated 01.10.2020 were not in challenge before it and the appeals preferred pursuant to those orders shall have to be examined by the Appellate Authority. Thus, the High Court qualified all its findings in paragraph 36 of the impugned order as being of its prima facie impression and specifically left the matter open for examination by the Appellate Authority.55.1. However, when the Appellate Authority ultimately passed the orders in setting aside the orders-in-original, one of the importers, despite being aware of the remedy of further appeal being available, chose to invoke, again, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. This time the High Court, in its impugned interim order dated 05.01.2021, made the observations that the decision by the Appellate Authority was at loggerheads with its earlier findings and directions. The High Court even observed that its findings in the order dated 15.10.2020 could not have been regarded as prima facie finding only; and when the goods were directed to be released forthwith, it was beyond comprehension as to how a lower Appellate Authority could have nullified such directions by ordering absolute confiscation.56. We find it very difficult to reconcile the observations of the High Court in these matters. Paragraph 36 of the order dated 15.10.2020 left nothing for a doubt with anyone that whatever the High Court had observed in that order as regards the orders dated 01.10.2020 was not of final determination; and the matter was left open, to be decided by the Commissioner (Appeals). Significantly, if the purport of the order dated 15.10.2020 had been that even if Commissioner (Appeals) would be deciding the matter in appeal, he could not order absolute confiscation of the goods because the High Court had ordered their release, it would immediately lead to the position that the order dated 15.10.2020 of the High Court carried inherent contradictions. In other words, if release of goods was the only option available with the authorities, the material part of consideration of the Appellate Authority had already been rendered redundant.57. For what has been discussed hereinabove, it is at once clear that when the matter was left for decision by the Commissioner (Appeals), there was neither any occasion nor any justification for the High Court to pass the order for release of the goods for the simple reason that any order for release of goods was to render the material part of the matter a fait accompli. This, simply, could not have been done. Putting it differently, a little pause after paragraph 36 of the impugned order 15.10.2020 and before the directions in the next paragraph would make it clear that for what had been observed in the said paragraph 36 of the impugned order (as regards leaving of the matter for decision by the Appellate Authority), any direction for release of goods pursuant to the order-in-original could not have been issued. To put it in yet other words, despite making several observations so as to indicate that the review orders dated 01.10.2020 were unjustified and the points stated therein were baseless or untenable, the High Court stopped short of setting aside the orders dated 01.10.2020 and also did not pronounce finally on the validity of the orders-in-original dated 28.08.2020 because the said orders-in-original were the subject matter of appeal. Having rightly left the matter for decision in appeal, the High Court committed a serious error in yet issuing such a writ as if the orders-in-original dated 28.08.2020 had become rule of the Court and as if the Court was ensuring its due execution. It gets, perforce, reiterated that if the orders-in-original dated 28.08.2020 were to be executed under the mandate of the High Court, the appeals were going to be practically redundant after release of the goods and nothing material was to remain for decision by the Appellate Authority on the main subject matter of the appeal.58. What has been indicated from different angles hereinabove leads only to one conclusion that the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the High Court suffers from inherent contradictions and inconsistencies; and cannot be approved.59. Apart from the fundamental flaws of contradictions, the order passed by the High Court on 15.10.2020 further suffers from the shortcomings that while issuing mandamus for release of goods, the High Court omitted to take into account the relevant facts as also the material factors concerning the imports in question, including the reasons for issuance of the notifications in question that the same were to safeguard the agriculture market economy of India; and the observations and findings of this Court in the case of Agricas (supra). An examination of the impugned order dated 15.10.2020 in its entirety makes it clear that the reasons for directing release of goods in favour of the importers are to be found only in paragraph 37 thereof. Therein, the High Court has taken into account a few factors standing in favour of the importers like the orders-in-original holding the field; the importers having made the necessary payments; and the importers incurring expenditure because of warehousing. An additional factor had been the High Courts dissatisfaction that the orders dated 01.10.2020 were passed in an improper manner and grounds given therein were not justifying the withholding of the goods. While proceeding on these reasons and considerations, it appears that the other overriding factors like the interest of domestic agriculture market economy as also the findings and observations of this Court in Agricas (supra) totally escaped the attention of the High Court. Thus, the impugned order dated 15.10.2020, having been passed while ignoring the relevant considerations, cannot be approved.60. For what has been observed hereinabove, the other order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the High Court in the second writ petition filed by the importerM/s. Raj Grow Impexalso deserves to be disapproved.60.1. As noticed, in the said order dated 05.01.2021, the High Court even observed that the Appellate Authority wrongly construed that its earlier decision for release of goods has been prima facie; and further questioned as to how a lower Appellate Authority could have nullified its directions for release of goods by ordering confiscation. The construction of its own order dated 15.10.2020, as put by the High Court in its later order dated 05.01.2021, only fortifies the inconsistencies we have indicated hereinabove. This apart, the expression prima facie in regard to the order of the High Court dated 15.10.2020 had not been a creation of the Appellate Authority but had been stated in unequivocal terms, twice over, in paragraph 36 of the order dated 15.10.2020, where the High Court also made it clear that final views were not being expressed because the matter was to be examined in appeal.60.2. Apart from the above, while entertaining the said second writ petition, the High Court seems to have also omitted to consider that the said writ petition was filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Authority and the alternative remedy of regular statutory appeal to CESTAT was available to the importer. In our view, on consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances in their correct perspective, the High Court would not have entertained the writ petitions so filed in these matters.61. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the impugned orders dated 15.10.2020 (read with the modification order dated 09.12.2020) and 05.01.2021 remain unsustainable and are required to be set aside.65. The categorical findings in the case of Agricas (supra) by this Court, read with the provisions above-quoted, hardly leave anything to doubt that sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the FTDR Act applies to the goods in question and, for having been imported under the cover of the interim orders but, contrary to the notifications and the trade notice issued under the FTDR Act and without the requisite licence, these goods shall be deemed to be prohibited goods under Section 11 of the Customs Act; and all the provisions of the Customs Act shall have effect over these goods and their import accordingly. However, a long deal of arguments has been advanced before us as regards the category in which these goods are to be placed, i.e., whether they are of restricted category or prohibited category.The contentions remain baseless and are required to be rejected.66.1. A bare look at the notifications in question and the findings of this Court in Agricas (supra) make it clear that only the particular restricted quantity of the commodities covered by the said notifications could have been imported, like those upto 1.5 lakh MTs; and that too, under a licence. The learned ASG has rightly pointed out with reference to the decision in PTR Exports (supra) that an applicant has no vested right to have export or import licence; and granting of licence depends upon the policy prevalent on the date. The learned ASG has further rightly submitted, with reference to the decision in S.B. International (supra), that granting a licence to import is not a matter of formality; and the authorities have to satisfy themselves that the application satisfies all the requirements of the scheme and the applicable laws. In S.B. International, this Court observed, inter alia,as under: -9. It should be noticed that grant of licence is neither a mechanical exercise nor a formality. On receipt of the application, the authorities have to satisfy themselves about the correctness of the contents of the application. They also have to satisfy themselves that the application satisfies all the requirements of the scheme and the other applicable provisions of law, if any….66.2. As noticed, only the particular restricted quantity of the commodities covered by the said notifications could have been imported and that too, under a licence. Therefore, any import within the cap (like that of 1.5 lakh MTs) under a licence is the import of restricted goods but, every import of goods in excess of the cap so provided by the notifications, is not that of restricted goods but is clearly an import of prohibited goods.67. The applicable principles of law relating to the categorisation of goods as prohibited or other than prohibited have been clearly enunciated by this Court in the decisions referred by the learned ASG.67.1. In the case of Sheikh Mohd. Omer (supra), a particular mare was found to be not a pet animal and, therefore, its import was found to be violative of the Imports Control Order. It was, however, an admitted position that the import of horses or mares was not prohibited as such. The question was as to whether by making such import, the appellant contravened Section 111(d) read with Section 125 of the Customs Act. While answering the question, this Court held that any restriction on import or export is to an extent a prohibition; and the expression any prohibition in Section 111(d) of the Customs Act includes restrictions. This Court further underscored that any prohibition means every prohibition; and restriction is also a type of prohibition. This Court, inter alia, said, -11…. While elaborating his argument the learned counsel invited our attention to the fact that while Section 111(d) of the Act uses the word prohibition. Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, takes in not merely prohibition of imports and exports, it also includes restrictions or otherwise controlling all imports and exports. According to him restrictions cannot be considered as prohibition more particularly under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, as that statute deals with restrictions or otherwise controlling separately from prohibitions. We are not impressed with this argument. What clause (d) of Section 111 says is that any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by any law for the time being in force in this country is liable to be confiscated. Any prohibition referred to in that section applies to every type of prohibition. That prohibition may be complete or partial. Any restriction on import or export is to an extent a prohibition. The expression any prohibition in Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 includes restrictions. Merely because Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 uses three different expressions prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling, we cannot cut down the amplitude of the word any prohibition in Section 111(d) of the Act. Any prohibition means every prohibition. In other words all types of prohibitions. Restriction is one type of prohibition…..(emphasis in bold supplied)67.2. In the case of Om Prakash Bhatia (supra), over-invoicing and fraudulent claim of drawback by the exporter was held to be that of exporting prohibited goods with reference to the requirements of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, while rejecting the contention of the exporter that Section 113(d) of the Customs Act was not applicable as the goods were not prohibited as such. A line of argument has been suggested on behalf of one of the respondents that the order ultimately passed in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia operates against the stand of the appellants. It is true that in that case, redemption fine and penalty was imposed but, the exercise of discretion in a particular manner related to the facts of that case. These aspects relating to the exercise of discretion shall be considered a little later, while dealing with the question as to whether the goods in question are liable to absolute confiscation or could be released on redemption fine. Suffice it to notice for the present purpose that the export attempted in violation of the conditions was held to be taking the goods in the category of prohibited goods.67.4.1. In the case of Atul Automations (supra), the goods imported without authorisation were found to be not prohibited but restricted items for import and the orders for their release with payment of fine in lieu of confiscation were approved. However, a close look at the factual aspects puts it beyond the pale of doubt that therein, this Court has neither laid down the law that in every case of import without authorisation, the goods are to be treated as restricted and not prohibited nor that the goods so imported without authorisation are always to be released on payment of redemption fine.67.4.2. The factual aspect of Atul Automations (supra) makes it clear that the imported Multi-Function Devices, Photocopiers and Printers (MFDs) involved in that case were restricted items, importable against authorisation under Clause 2.31 of the Foreign Trade Policy. Thus, the MFDs were found to be restricted items for import and not prohibited items. That had not been the case where import was restricted in terms of quantity in the manner that the goods were importable only up to a particular extent of quantity and that too against a licence. It was also found therein that the Central Government had permitted the import of used MFDs having utility for at least five years, keeping in mind that they were not being manufactured in the country.67.4.3. The present case is of an entirely different restriction where import of the referred peas/pulses has been restricted to a particular quantity and could be made only against a licence. The letter and spirit of this restriction, as expounded by this Court earlier, is that, any import beyond the specified quantity is clearly impermissible and is prohibited. This Court has highlighted the adverse impact of excessive quantity of imports of these commodities on the agricultural market economy in the case of Agricas (supra) whereas, it had not been the case in Atul Automations (supra) that the import was otherwise likely to affect the domestic market economy. In contrast to the case of Atul Automations, where the goods were permitted to be imported (albeit with authorisation) for the reason that they were not manufactured in the country, in the present case, the underlying feature for restricting the imports by quantum has been the availability of excessive stocks and adverse impact on the price obtainable by the farmers of the country. The decision in Atul Automations (supra), by no stretch of imagination, could be considered having any application to the present case.68. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the goods in question, having been imported in contravention of the notifications dated 29.03.2019 and trade notice dated 16.04.2019; and being of import beyond the permissible quantity and without licence, are prohibited goods for the purpose of the Customs Act(In the passing, we may observe that even in the orders-in-original dated 28.08.2020 by the Adjudicating Authority, it was clearly held that the goods in question were prohibited goods (vide the findings reproduced hereinbefore in paragraph 22.2).).68.1. The unnecessary and baseless arguments raised on behalf of the importers that the goods in question are of restricted category, with reference to the expression restricted having been used for the purpose of the notifications in question or with reference to the general answers given by DGFT or other provisions of FTDR Act are, therefore, rejected. The goods in question fall in the category of prohibited goods.69. Once it is clear that the goods in question are improperly imported and fall in the category of prohibited goods, the provisions contained in Chapter XIV of the Customs Act, 1962 come into operation and the subject goods are liable to confiscation apart from other consequences.69.1. A bare reading of the provision aforesaid makes it evident that a clear distinction is made between prohibited goods and other goods. As has rightly been pointed out, the latter part of Section 125 obligates the release of confiscated goods (i.e., other than prohibited goods) against redemption fine but, the earlier part of this provision makes no such compulsion as regards the prohibited goods; and it is left to the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority that it may give an option for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. It is innate in this provision that if the Adjudicating Authority does not choose to give such an option, the result would be of absolute confiscation. The Adjudicating Authority in the present matters had given such an option of payment of fine in lieu of confiscation with imposition of penalty whereas the Appellate Authority has found faults in such exercise of discretion and has ordered absolute confiscation with enhancement of the amount of penalty. This takes us to the principles to be applied for exercise of the discretion so available in the first part of Section 125(1) of the Customs Act.70.1. In the case of Sant Raj (supra), referred to and relied upon by both the sides, this Court dealt with the matter as regards the discretion of Labour Court to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement and observedas under: -4…..Whenever, it is said that something has to be done within the discretion of the authority then that something has to be done according to the rules of reason and justice and not according to private opinion, according to law and not humor. It is to be not arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular and it must be exercised within the limit to which an honest man to the discharge of his office ought to find himself….. Discretion means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humor, it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful…..(emphasis in bold supplied)70.3. In the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra), while dealing with the case of non-exercise of discretion by the authority, this Court expounded on the contours of discretion as also on limitations on the powers of the Courts when the matter is of the discretion of the competent authority, in the following terms: -12. The High Court was equally in error in directing the Corporation to offer alternative job to drivers who are found to be medically unfit before dispensing with their services. The court cannot dictate the decision of the statutory authority that ought to be made in the exercise of discretion in a given case. The court cannot direct the statutory authority to exercise the discretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law. The court could only command the statutory authority by a writ of mandamus to perform its duty by exercising the discretion according to law. Whether alternative job is to be offered or not is a matter left to the discretion of the competent authority of the Corporation and the Corporation has to exercise the discretion in individual cases. The court cannot command the Corporation to exercise discretion in a particular manner and in favour of a particular person. That would be beyond the jurisdiction of the court.13. In the instant case, the Corporation has denied itself the discretion to offer an alternative job which the regulation requires it to exercise in individual cases of retrenchment. ……It may be stated that the statutory discretion cannot be fettered by self- created rules or policy. Although it is open to an authority to which discretion has been entrusted to lay down the norms or rules to regulate exercise of discretion it cannot, however, deny itself the discretion which the statute requires it to exercise in individual cases. ……xxx xxx xxx15.……Every discretion conferred by statute on a holder of public office must be exercised in furtherance of accomplishment of purpose of the power. The purpose of discretionary decision making under Regulation 17(3) was intended to rehabilitate the disabled drivers to the extent possible and within the abovesaid constraints. The Corporation therefore, cannot act mechanically. The discretion should not be exercised according to whim, caprice or ritual. The discretion should be exercised reasonably and rationally. It should be exercised faithfully and impartially. There should be proper value judgment with fairness and equity…..(emphasis in bold supplied)70.4. In the case of Glaxo Smith Kline (supra), this Court expounded on the principles that the Constitutional Courts, even in exercise of their wide jurisdictions, cannot disregard the substantive provisions of statute while observing, inter alia,as under: -12. Indubitably, the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are wide, but certainly not wider than the plenary powers bestowed on this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. Article 142 is a conglomeration and repository of the entire judicial powers under the Constitution, to do complete justice to the parties.Even while exercising that power, this Court is required to bear in mind the legislative intent and not to render the statutory provision otiose.71. Thus, when it comes to discretion, the exercise thereof has to be guided by law; has to be according to the rules of reason and justice; and has to be based on the relevant considerations. The exercise of discretion is essentially the discernment of what is right and proper; and such discernment is the critical and cautious judgment of what is correct and proper by differentiating between shadow and substance as also between equity and pretence. A holder of public office, when exercising discretion conferred by the statute, has to ensure that such exercise is in furtherance of accomplishment of the purpose underlying conferment of such power. The requirements of reasonableness, rationality, impartiality, fairness and equity are inherent in any exercise of discretion; such an exercise can never be according to the private opinion.71.1. It is hardly of any debate that discretion has to be exercised judiciously and, for that matter, all the facts and all the relevant surrounding factors as also the implication of exercise of discretion either way have to be properly weighed and a balanced decision is required to be taken.72. It is true that the statutory authority cannot be directed to exercise its discretion in a particular manner but, as noticed in the present case, the exercise of discretion by the Adjudicating Authority has been questioned on various grounds and the Appellate Authority has, in fact, set aside the orders-in-original whereby the Adjudicating Authority had exercised the discretion to release the goods with redemption fine and penalty. Having found that the goods in question fall in the category of prohibited goods coupled with the relevant background aspects, including the reasons behind issuance of the notifications in question and the findings of this Court in Agricas (supra), the question is as to whether the exercise of discretion by the Adjudicating Authority in these matters, giving option of payment of fine in lieu of confiscation, could be approved?73. As regards the question at hand, we may usefully take note of the relevant decisions cited by learned counsel for the parties. However, it may be observed that the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Horizon Ferro Alloys (supra), dealing with a particular class of goods that were restricted and not prohibited, needs no elaboration.76.1. From the decision in Hargovind Das K. Joshi (supra), it is not borne out as to what was the reason for which the goods (zip fasteners) became subject to confiscation and it appears that at a later point of time, free import of the item had also been allowed. Be that as it may, what this Court found therein was that the Adjudicating Authority omitted to take into consideration one part of the discretion available for him i.e., of giving an option for redemption with payment of fine in lieu of confiscation and for that reason alone, the matter was remitted. The said decision cannot be read as an authority for the proposition that in every case of confiscation, invariably, the discretion has to be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority to give an option for redemption by payment of fine. In our view, the said decision does not make out any case in favour of the importers.76.2. In fact, the observations made in Hargovind Das K. Joshi (supra) rather operate against the orders-in-original in the present appeals because therein, the Adjudicating Authority, after finding the goods liable to confiscation, straightaway proceeded as if the option for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation has to be given and did not consider the other part of discretion available with him that the goods could also be confiscated absolutely.77. Thus, for what has been noticed above, the Kerala High Court has approved absolute confiscation of similar goods while following the decision of this Court in Agricas (supra) and after finding unsustainable the order of Tribunal for release of goods. In the case of Garg Woollen Mills (supra), this Court approved absolute confiscation when fraud was involved. In Hargovind Das K. Joshi (supra), when one part of discretion of Section 125(1) of the Customs Act was not taken into account, this Court remitted the matter for proper exercise of discretion.78. It is true that, ordinarily, when a statutory authority is invested with discretion, the same deserves to be left for exercise by that authority but the significant factors in the present case are that the Adjudicating Authority had exercised the discretion in a particular manner without regard to the other alternative available; and the Appellate Authority has found such exercise of discretion by the Adjudicating Authority wholly unjustified. In the given circumstances, even the course adopted in the case of Hargovind Das K. Joshi (of remitting the matter for consideration of omitted part of discretion) cannot be adopted in the present appeals; and it becomes inevitable that a final decision is taken herein as to how the subject goods are to be dealt with under Section 125 of the Customs Act.79. As noticed, the exercise of discretion is a critical and solemn exercise, to be undertaken rationally and cautiously and has to be guided by law; has to be according to the rules of reason and justice; and has to be based on relevant considerations. The quest has to be to find what is proper. Moreover, an authority acting under the Customs Act, when exercising discretion conferred by Section 125 thereof, has to ensure that such exercise is in furtherance of accomplishment of the purpose underlying conferment of such power. The purpose behind leaving such discretion with the Adjudicating Authority in relation to prohibited goods is, obviously, to ensure that all the pros and cons shall be weighed before taking a final decision for release or absolute confiscation of goods.80. For what has been observed hereinabove, it is but evident that the orders-in-original dated 28.08.2020 cannot be said to have been passed in a proper exercise of discretion. The Adjudicating Authority did not even pause to consider if the other alternative of absolute confiscation was available to it in its discretion as per the first part of Section 125(1) of the Customs Act and proceeded as if it has to give the option of payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. Such exercise of discretion by the Adjudicating Authority was more of assumptive and ritualistic nature rather than of a conscious as also cautious adherence to the applicable principles. The Appellate Authority, on the other hand, has stated various reasons as to why the option of absolute confiscation was the only proper exercise of discretion in the present matter. We find the reasons assigned by the Appellate Authority, particularly in paragraph 54.3 of the order-in-appeal dated 24.12.2020 (reproduced in point c of paragraph 38.2 hereinabove) to be fully in accord with the principles of exercise of discretion, as indicated hereinabove and in view of the facts and peculiar circumstances of this case.81. It needs hardly any elaboration to find that the prohibition involved in the present matters, of not allowing the imports of the commodities in question beyond a particular quantity, was not a prohibition simpliciter. It was provided with reference to the requirements of balancing the interests of the farmers on the one hand and the importers on the other. Any inflow of these prohibited goods in the domestic market is going to have a serious impact on the market economy of the country. The cascading effect of such improper imports in the previous year under the cover of interim orders was amply noticed by this Court in Agricas (supra). This Court also held that the imports were not bona fide and were made by the importers only for their personal gains.82. The sum and substance of the matter is that as regards the imports in question, the personal interests of the importers who made improper imports are pitted against the interests of national economy and more particularly, the interests of farmers. This factor alone is sufficient to find the direction in which discretion ought to be exercised in these matters. When personal business interests of importers clash with public interest, the former has to, obviously, give way to the latter. Further, not a lengthy discussion is required to say that, if excessive improperly imported peas/pulses are allowed to enter the countrys market, the entire purpose of the notifications would be defeated. The discretion in the cases of present nature, involving far-reaching impact on national economy, cannot be exercised only with reference to the hardship suggested by the importers, who had made such improper imports only for personal gains. The imports in question suffer from the vices of breach of law as also lack of bona fide and the only proper exercise of discretion would be of absolute confiscation and ensuring that these tainted goods do not enter Indian markets. Imposition of penalty on such importers; and rather heavier penalty on those who have been able to get some part of goods released is, obviously, warranted.83. Before closing on this part of discussion, we may also refer to a decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Finesse Creation Inc. (supra), cited on behalf of one of the importers. In that case, the declared value of goods imported by the assessee in respect of 13 consignments over a period of about three years was rejected and the Commissioner ordered re-assessment of the value of goods; and after re-determination, differential duty was confirmed under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act with recovery of interest under Section 28AB thereof. Moreover, the imported goods were confiscated and redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act was also imposed in lieu of confiscation. While confirming the differential duty and consequent penalty and interest, CESTAT quashed the imposition of redemption fine because the goods were not available for confiscation. In that context, the High Court said that the concept of redemption fine would arise in the event the goods were available and were to be redeemed; and if the goods were not available, there was no question of redemption of goods. The said decision cannot be pressed into service in the present case merely because the said importerhas been able to obtain release of all the goods after passing of the order-in-original of the Adjudicating Authority dated 28.08.2020 when the same was under challenge. The present one is not a case where the subject goods were not available on the day of passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority.84. Hence, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case as noticed and dilated hereinabove, the discretion could only be for absolute confiscation with levy of penalty. At the most, an option for re- export could be given to the importers and that too, on payment of redemption fine and upon discharging other statutory obligations. This option we had already left open in the order dated 18.03.2021, passed during the hearing of these matters.85. For what we have observed hereinabove, the orders-in-original dated 28.08.2020 cannot be approved. As a necessary corollary, the orders-in-appeal dated 24.12.2020 deserve to be approved. However, before final conclusion in that regard, a few more aspects need to be dealt with.86.1. In regard to the submissions invoking equity, noticeable it is that various such features of equity were taken into consideration by the Adjudicating Authority, in the orders-in-original dated 28.08.2020 and by the High Court, in the impugned order dated 15.10.2020 while directing release of goods. We have already disapproved the orders so passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the High Court. Therefore, no leniency in the name of equity can be claimed by these importers. In fact, any invocation of equity in these matters is even otherwise ruled out in view of specific rejection of the claim of bona fide imports by this Court in Agricas (supra). Once this Court has reached to the conclusion that a particular action is wanting in bona fide, the perpetrator cannot claim any relief in equity in relation to the same action. Absence of bona fide in a claimant and his claim of equity remain incompatible and cannot stand together.86.2. The overt suggestions on behalf of the interveners that demand and supply of pulses is dynamic and not static in nature have only been noted to be rejected. In our view, meeting with the requirements of demand and supply is essentially a matter for policy decision of the Government. No equity could be claimed with such submissions by the importers. Similarly, if, for whatever reason, any consignment of the subject goods has been released, such release had not been in accord with law and no equity could be claimed on that basis.86.3. Therefore, all the submissions seeking relief in equity are required to be, and are, rejected.87. We have also pondered over the prayer for keeping the opportunity of further statutory appeal to CESTAT open for the importers. Though in ordinary circumstances, such a prayer might have been of no difficulty but, we are of the view that having regard to the background and the relevant circumstances, any liberty for further rounds of litigation, at least in relation to the respondents before us, is not called for; and the matters ought to be given a finality.88. As regards the importer, as noticed, the order-in-appeal was consciously challenged by it by way of a fresh writ petition in the High Court despite being aware of the availability of statutory remedy of appeal before CESTAT. No cogent and plausible reason is forthcoming as to why it had chosen to avoid the regular remedy of appeal except that it had the keen desire to get the remaining goods (under seven bills of entry) released after it had obtained release of goods under three bills of entry; and in that attempt, filed a fresh writ petition challenging the order-in-appeal and also filed a contempt petition in the High Court.88.1. So far as the question of release of goods is concerned, the matter stands concluded once we have found that the goods covered by the notifications in question and by the judgment of this Court in Agricas (supra) are liable to absolute confiscation. Therefore, any prayer for release of any of such goods becomes redundant and cannot be granted by any authority or Court. Of course, it is true that the Appellate Authority has enhanced penalty from Rs. 1.485 crores to Rs. 5 crores but, the fact that this importer had taken release of the goods covered by three bills of entry and that aspect of the matter was required to taken as fait accompli by the Appellate Authority, in our view, effectively operates against any claim for reduction of the amount of penalty. Putting it differently, once we have approved the order-in-appeal, any attempt for further appeal by this importer shall remain an exercise in futility.89. So far as the other importeris concerned, it had obtained release of goods covered by all its eight bills of entry and, therefore, the matter was taken as fait accompli by the Appellate Authority with appropriation of redemption fine and enhancement of penalty. As noticed, this importer has even attempted to argue before us against redemption fine with the submissions that the goods were not available for confiscation. Neither the redemption fine nor even the enhancement of penalty from Rs. 2.34 crores to Rs. 10 crores could fully set off the damage caused by the actions of this importer. Needless to repeat that with our approval of the order-in-appeal, any attempt for further appeal by this importer shall also remain an exercise in futility.90. In view of above, we find no reason to allow any prayer for filing appeal against the orders-in-appeal dated 24.12.2020.91. While closing on these matters, we are constrained to observe that the root cause of the present controversy had not been that much in the notifications in question as it had been in the interim orders passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. It needs hardly any elaboration that only under the cover of such interim orders that the importers ventured into the import transactions which resulted in excessive quantities of peas/pulses than those permitted by the notifications reaching the Indian ports. As has been noticed in the present cases, some of the goods so imported got released and the Commissioner (Appeals) had to take that aspect as fait accompli. For what has been held by this Court in Agricas (supra), and further for what has been held in this judgment, the goods in question were not to mingle in the Indian market. Such mingling, obviously, has an adverse impact on the agricultural market economy and defeats the policy of the Government of India. This state of affairs was an avoidable one; and would have been avoided if, before passing interim orders, the respective Courts would have paused to consider the implications and impact of such interim orders, which were, for all practical purposes, going to operate as mandatory injunction, whereby the appellants were bound to allow the goods to reach the Indian ports, even if the notifications were prohibiting any such import.91.1. Having regard to the scenario that has unfolded in the present cases, we are impelled to re-state that even though granting of an interim relief is a matter of discretion, such a discretion needs to be exercised judiciously and with due regard to the relevant factors.92. In addition to the general principles for exercise of discretion, as discussed hereinbefore, a few features specific to the matters of interim relief need special mention. It is rather elementary that in the matters of grant of interim relief, satisfaction of the Court only about existence of prima facie case in favour of the suitor is not enough. The other elements i.e., balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury, are not of empty formality and carry their own relevance; and while exercising its discretion in the matter of interim relief and adopting a particular course, the Court needs to weigh the risk of injustice, if ultimately the decision of main matter runs counter to the course being adopted at the time of granting or refusing the interim relief. We may usefully refer to the relevant principle stated in the decision of Chancery Division in Films Rover International Ltd. and Ors. v. Cannon Film Sales Ltd.: [1986] 3 All ER 772as under: -….The principal dilemma about the grant of interlocutory injunctions, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is that there is by definition a risk that the court may make the wrong decision, in the sense of granting an injunction to a party who fails to establish his right at the trial (or would fail if there was a trial) or alternatively, in failing to grant an injunction to a party who succeeds (or would succeed) at trial. A fundamental principle is therefore that the court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been wrong in the sense I have described. The guidelines for the grant of both kinds of interlocutory injunctions are derived from this principle.(emphasis in bold supplied)A direct answer to this question would have made it clear that their injury, if at all, would have been of some amount of loss of profit, which could always be measured in monetary terms and, usually, cannot be regarded as an irreparable one. Another simple but pertinent question would have been concerning the element of balance of convenience; and a simple answer to the same would have further shown that the inconvenience which the importers were going to suffer because of the notifications in question was far lesser than the inconvenience which the appellants were going to suffer (with ultimate impact on national interest) in case operation of the notifications was stayed and thereby, the markets of India were allowed to be flooded with excessive quantity of the said imported peas/pulses.94. In fact, the repercussion of the stay orders passed in the earlier years were duly noticed by this Court in Agricas (supra); and unfortunately, more or less same adverse consequences had been hovering over the markets because of the imports made under the cover of the interim orders passed in relation to the notifications dated 29.03.2019. This, in our view, was not likely to happen if the material factors relating to balance of convenience and irreparable injury were taken into account while dealing with the prayers for interim relief in the writ petitions. As noticed, this Court had, in unequivocal terms, declared in Agricas (supra), that the importers cannot be said to be under any bona fide belief in effecting the imports under the cover of interim orders; and they would face the consequences in law. It gets, perforce, reiterated that all this was avoidable if the implications were taken into account before granting any interim relief in these matters.95. We need not expand the comments in regard to the matters relating to the grant or refusal of interim relief and would close this discussion while reiterating the principles noticed above.
### Instruction:
Determine the likely decision of the case (acceptance (1) or rejection (0)) and follow up with an explanation highlighting key sentences that support this prediction.

### Input:
judiciously and with due regard to the relevant factors. 92. In addition to the general principles for exercise of discretion, as discussed hereinbefore, a few features specific to the matters of interim relief need special mention. It is rather elementary that in the matters of grant of interim relief, satisfaction of the Court only about existence of prima facie case in favour of the suitor is not enough. The other elements i.e., balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury, are not of empty formality and carry their own relevance; and while exercising its discretion in the matter of interim relief and adopting a particular course, the Court needs to weigh the risk of injustice, if ultimately the decision of main matter runs counter to the course being adopted at the time of granting or refusing the interim relief. We may usefully refer to the relevant principle stated in the decision of Chancery Division in Films Rover International Ltd. and Ors. v. Cannon Film Sales Ltd.: [1986] 3 All ER 772 as under: - ….The principal dilemma about the grant of interlocutory injunctions, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is that there is by definition a risk that the court may make the wrong decision, in the sense of granting an injunction to a party who fails to establish his right at the trial (or would fail if there was a trial) or alternatively, in failing to grant an injunction to a party who succeeds (or would succeed) at trial. A fundamental principle is therefore that the court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been wrong in the sense I have described. The guidelines for the grant of both kinds of interlocutory injunctions are derived from this principle. (emphasis in bold supplied) 92.1. While referring to various expositions in the said decision, this Court, in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors.: (1990) 2 SCC 117 observed as under: - 16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. 17. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion. (emphasis in bold supplied) 93. In keeping with the principles aforesaid, one of the simple questions to be adverted to at the threshold stage in the present cases was, as to whether the importers (writ petitioners) were likely to suffer irreparable injury in case the interim relief was denied and they were to ultimately succeed in the writ petitions. A direct answer to this question would have made it clear that their injury, if at all, would have been of some amount of loss of profit, which could always be measured in monetary terms and, usually, cannot be regarded as an irreparable one. Another simple but pertinent question would have been concerning the element of balance of convenience; and a simple answer to the same would have further shown that the inconvenience which the importers were going to suffer because of the notifications in question was far lesser than the inconvenience which the appellants were going to suffer (with ultimate impact on national interest) in case operation of the notifications was stayed and thereby, the markets of India were allowed to be flooded with excessive quantity of the said imported peas/pulses. 94. In fact, the repercussion of the stay orders passed in the earlier years were duly noticed by this Court in Agricas (supra); and unfortunately, more or less same adverse consequences had been hovering over the markets because of the imports made under the cover of the interim orders passed in relation to the notifications dated 29.03.2019. This, in our view, was not likely to happen if the material factors relating to balance of convenience and irreparable injury were taken into account while dealing with the prayers for interim relief in the writ petitions. As noticed, this Court had, in unequivocal terms, declared in Agricas (supra), that the importers cannot be said to be under any bona fide belief in effecting the imports under the cover of interim orders; and they would face the consequences in law. It gets, perforce, reiterated that all this was avoidable if the implications were taken into account before granting any interim relief in these matters. 95. We need not expand the comments in regard to the matters relating to the grant or refusal of interim relief and would close this discussion while reiterating the principles noticed above. Summation

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
fine and enhancement of penalty. As noticed, this importer has even attempted to argue before us against redemption fine with the submissions that the goods were not available for confiscation. Neither the redemption fine nor even the enhancement of penalty from Rs. 2.34 crores to Rs. 10 crores could fully set off the damage caused by the actions of this importer. Needless to repeat that with our approval of the order-in-appeal, any attempt for further appeal by this importer shall also remain an exercise in futility.90. In view of above, we find no reason to allow any prayer for filing appeal against the orders-in-appeal dated 24.12.2020.91. While closing on these matters, we are constrained to observe that the root cause of the present controversy had not been that much in the notifications in question as it had been in the interim orders passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. It needs hardly any elaboration that only under the cover of such interim orders that the importers ventured into the import transactions which resulted in excessive quantities of peas/pulses than those permitted by the notifications reaching the Indian ports. As has been noticed in the present cases, some of the goods so imported got released and the Commissioner (Appeals) had to take that aspect as fait accompli. For what has been held by this Court in Agricas (supra), and further for what has been held in this judgment, the goods in question were not to mingle in the Indian market. Such mingling, obviously, has an adverse impact on the agricultural market economy and defeats the policy of the Government of India. This state of affairs was an avoidable one; and would have been avoided if, before passing interim orders, the respective Courts would have paused to consider the implications and impact of such interim orders, which were, for all practical purposes, going to operate as mandatory injunction, whereby the appellants were bound to allow the goods to reach the Indian ports, even if the notifications were prohibiting any such import.91.1. Having regard to the scenario that has unfolded in the present cases, we are impelled to re-state that even though granting of an interim relief is a matter of discretion, such a discretion needs to be exercised judiciously and with due regard to the relevant factors.92. In addition to the general principles for exercise of discretion, as discussed hereinbefore, a few features specific to the matters of interim relief need special mention. It is rather elementary that in the matters of grant of interim relief, satisfaction of the Court only about existence of prima facie case in favour of the suitor is not enough. The other elements i.e., balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury, are not of empty formality and carry their own relevance; and while exercising its discretion in the matter of interim relief and adopting a particular course, the Court needs to weigh the risk of injustice, if ultimately the decision of main matter runs counter to the course being adopted at the time of granting or refusing the interim relief. We may usefully refer to the relevant principle stated in the decision of Chancery Division in Films Rover International Ltd. and Ors. v. Cannon Film Sales Ltd.: [1986] 3 All ER 772as under: -….The principal dilemma about the grant of interlocutory injunctions, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is that there is by definition a risk that the court may make the wrong decision, in the sense of granting an injunction to a party who fails to establish his right at the trial (or would fail if there was a trial) or alternatively, in failing to grant an injunction to a party who succeeds (or would succeed) at trial. A fundamental principle is therefore that the court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been wrong in the sense I have described. The guidelines for the grant of both kinds of interlocutory injunctions are derived from this principle.(emphasis in bold supplied)A direct answer to this question would have made it clear that their injury, if at all, would have been of some amount of loss of profit, which could always be measured in monetary terms and, usually, cannot be regarded as an irreparable one. Another simple but pertinent question would have been concerning the element of balance of convenience; and a simple answer to the same would have further shown that the inconvenience which the importers were going to suffer because of the notifications in question was far lesser than the inconvenience which the appellants were going to suffer (with ultimate impact on national interest) in case operation of the notifications was stayed and thereby, the markets of India were allowed to be flooded with excessive quantity of the said imported peas/pulses.94. In fact, the repercussion of the stay orders passed in the earlier years were duly noticed by this Court in Agricas (supra); and unfortunately, more or less same adverse consequences had been hovering over the markets because of the imports made under the cover of the interim orders passed in relation to the notifications dated 29.03.2019. This, in our view, was not likely to happen if the material factors relating to balance of convenience and irreparable injury were taken into account while dealing with the prayers for interim relief in the writ petitions. As noticed, this Court had, in unequivocal terms, declared in Agricas (supra), that the importers cannot be said to be under any bona fide belief in effecting the imports under the cover of interim orders; and they would face the consequences in law. It gets, perforce, reiterated that all this was avoidable if the implications were taken into account before granting any interim relief in these matters.95. We need not expand the comments in regard to the matters relating to the grant or refusal of interim relief and would close this discussion while reiterating the principles noticed above.
