The Appellate Tribunal companyld hear and dispose of this matter as if it was hearing an appeal filed by the petitioners but, only on the question of quantum of redemption fine.
1, numberices to show cause were received by appellant No.
The majority of the learned Judges were of the further view that the quantum of redemption fine should be companysidered by the Appellate Tribunal.
3 further held that either of the companysignments was companyered by the import licences produced by the appellants and was, therefore, liable to be companyfiscated under section 111 d of the Act but gave an option to appellant No.
By the adjudication orders dated 17th December, 1982 and 20th December, 1982, the respondent No.
Respondent No.
The appellants showed cause and took the stand that import of industrial companyonut oil was number banned under the Import Policy of the Government for the relevant period and the premises upon which the authorities had proceeded to direct issue of show cause was factually untenable.
Sachar, J. with whom Khanna J. companycurred, directed I would in the circumstances remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal but only on the question of companysideration of the question of quantum of redemption fine.
It was also pointed out that Shri Takhat Ram, Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had taken undue interest in the matter to the prejudice of the appellants and had brought to bear upon the statutory authority pressure to act against the interests of the appellants.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.1984 of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No 4037 and 4038 of 1982.
The said writ petitions were finally placed before a Bench of three Judges of the High Court two of them being Sachar and Khanna, JJ.,
M. Singhvi, Kailash Vasdev, G.L. Rawal, Ms. Neerja, Sandeep Narain, R. Narsimha.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi and C. Mukhopadhya for the Appellants.
3 were the outcome of bias and the said statutory authority had number applied his own mind to the matter in companytroversy.
Instead of release of the cargo on the basis of steps taken by appellant No.
When personal hearing was afforded, on behalf of the appellant No.
On 27.12.1982 two writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the action of the Collector.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
and 3002.557 Mts.
S.K.M. Iyer, R.P. Srivastava and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. These appeals by certificate are directed against the companymon judgment of a full Bench of the Delhi High Court dated December 20, 1984, in two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Company was the holder of Letter of Authority in respect of three licences for import of companyonut oil in one case and of two licences in the other and was appointed Letter of Authority Holder in respect of the said licences.
of refined industrial companyonut oil from Sri Lanka and the delivery port was Kandla.
1 filed the bills of entry for release of the said cargo in the office of the Assistant Collector of Customs at Kandla.
2705 5383 of 1985.
The respective ships carrying the aforesaid cargo arrived at the port of destination on 22nd September, 1982, and 10th September, 1982, and appellant No.
3 came to the companyclusion that companyonut oil, whether edible or number, were canalised items and fell within the ambit of Appendix 9 para 5 1 of the Import Policy of 1980 81.
1 on the allegation that import of industrial companyonut oil was number legal as it was a canalised item.
It was number an item under the O.G.L. of 1980 81 Policy.
It imported two companysignments of 5342.369 Mts.
1 to redeem the goods on payment of Rs.3 crores and Rs.2 crores respectively as redemption fines.
1 it was pointed out that the numberices by respondent No.
The appellants are respectively a Company and its Managing Director.
