http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: M/s.  RAMCHAND JAGADISH CHAND

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/08/1961

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SUBBARAO, K. HIDAYATULLAH, M. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

CITATION:  1963 AIR  563            1962 SCR  (3)  72  CITATOR INFO :  R          1966 SC1044  (8)  E          1968 SC 718  (18)  R          1971 SC1283  (11)

ACT: Import Licence-Import Trade Control Policy-Export Promotion- Scheme-Right  of State to impose restrictions on  imports-If infringes  fundamental  right-Licencing  Authority Powers granted under the scheme--Whether uncanalised and arbitrary- Emergency Provisions (continuance, Ordinance, 1946 Imports and  Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of  1947)  s.3--Imports (Control)  Order 1955, Cl. 3. Appendix 42, cl.  Constitution of India-Arts. 14, 19(1) (g). Intervener Writ petition dismissed by High  Court-Petitioner could  be  heard  as intervener in  Supreme  Court-Right  of appeal Constitution of India-Art. 226.

HEADNOTE: Government of India published a’scheme known as the  "Export Promotion  Scheme"  according to which the value  of  import licence  for raw materials in an industry depended upon  the value  of  specified  varieties of  goods  exported  by  the applicant  for  an import licence.  It  also  empowered  the Controller  of Imports and Exports under cl. 2 ’of  Appendix 42 of the Import (Control) order 1955 to issue a license  up to 66-2/3 per cent of the export value in the case of Indian artsilk  sarees and up to 100 per cent in the case of  other Indian  artsilk fabrics.  The appellant firm R of  exporters and  importers  relying upon cl.2 of  the  Export  Promotion Scheme applied for an import licence equivalent to the value of  the goods it had exported and earned  foreign  exchange. In  view  of certain malpractices the  Government  of  India suspended  the  "Export  Promotion"  scheme  and  set  up  a committee for verification of the values of goods  exported. The Committee after scrutinising the firm’s claim found that rates  of  some  of  the items  could  not  be  accepted  as reasonable, and recommended an import licence  approximately of the value of 45 per cent of the goods exported.  The firm R  after making an infructuous demand for a licence for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

full  value  of the goods exported filed  a  writ  petition. They   submitted  that  the  Controller  of   Licences   had arbitrarily  reduced the value of their import  licence  and had  thereby unlawfully infringed their  fundamental  right. They  also  claimed that the Controller was bound  to  grant licence under the Export Promotion Scheme for the full value of  the goods exported by them and in failing to do  so  had practised discrimination 73 against  them,  because several other importers  during  the identical  period were given licences for the full value  of goods exported. Held,  that the fundamental right of a citizen to  carry  on any occupation, trade or business under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution  is not absolute; it is subject  to  reasonable restrictions  which  may  be imposed by  the  State  in  the interest of the general public. The  right  of  the State to impose control  in  the  larger interest  of the general public on imports  has  accordingly not been denied; nor is the authority of the State to  issue the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 in exercise of the  powers conferred by the Imports and Exports (Control) Act providing for  imposition  of  restrictions by  permitting  import  of certain  goods  only  in accordance  with  the  licences  or customs  permits granted by the Central Government, open  to challenge.   The authority to grant or refuse to  grant  the licence is conferred upon high officers of the State and the grant  of  licence is governed by the Import  Trade  Control Policy  and  detailed provisions are made  setting  out  the grounds  on  which  licences may be  refused,  suspended  or cancelled and provision to afford a hearing before action is taken is also made; thus the powers conferred under cl.3  of the  Imports  (Control) Order, 1955 are not  uncanalised  or arbitrary. The  power  granted  to the  licensing  authority  to  grant licences  only  up to the maximum specified in cl.2  of  the appendix  42 is by itself not an  unreasonable  restriction, nor   will  the  notification  directing  scrutiny  of   all applications amount to imposing an unreasonable restriction. The  clause invests the Controller with authority,  it  does not  impose  an  obligation  upon  him  enforceable  at  the instance of the exporter, to issue a licence for the  amount (subject to the maximum prescribed) claimed by the exporter. The  power is plainly discretionary and the orderd   by  the Controller  granting  a licence only for 45% of  the   goods exported  does  not infringe the fundamental  right  of  the petitioner  under  Art.  19(1)(g)  of  the  Constitution  by imposing an unreasonable restriction. Held,  further that in the absence of evidence to show  that discriminatory  treatment  was made  between  the  aggrieved person and to persons similarly circumstanced, there can  be no violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution which confers  a guarantee  against arbitrary discrimination between  persons similarly circumstanced-. Held,  also that where an application for writ of  mandamus, direction or order under Art. 226 of the 74 Constitution is dismissed by the High Court, the-only remedy to  the aggrieved person is to come up by appeal and he  has no right to be heard as an intervener.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1 of 1960.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

Under  article  32  of the Constitution  of  India  for  the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. A.   V. Viswanatha Sastri, ’K.K. Jain and Ganpat Raj, for  the Petitioners. C.   K.Daphtary,  Solicitor-General  of India,  V.A.  Saiyed Mohamad and T. M. Sen, for the Respondents. 1961.  August 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH,  J.-Controls  on  exports and imports  imposed  as  an emergency measure during the last war in respect of  certain commodities  were kept alive after the lapse of the  Defence of  India  Rules by the Emergency  Provisions  (Continuance) Ordinance, 1946 which was later replaced by the Imports  and Exports (Control) Act,. 1947 ( 18 of 1947), by s.(3) of  the Act,   the  Central  Government  was  authorised  by   order published   in   the  Official  Gazette,  to   provide   for prohibiting,  restricting or otherwise controlling,  in  all cases or in specified classes of cases, and subject to  such exceptions  if  any, as may be made by or under  the  order, inter alia the import, export, carriage xxx xxx of goods  of any  specified description.  By sub-sec(2) of s.3.,  it  was provided  that all goods to which an order  under  sub-s.(1) applied  shall be deemed to be goods of which the import  or export  has been prohibited or restricted under s.19 of  the Sea  Customs  Act.  Exercising authority under  s.3  of  the Imports  and  Exports  (Control)  Act,  1947,  the   Central Government   issued   notifications  from   time   to   time prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling the export and import of diverse commodities.  By a consolidated  order dated 75 December  7,  1955, known as the  Imports  (Control)  Order, 1955,  restrictions  on  the import of  certain  goods  were imposed  by  el.  3 of the said order.  By  el.  3,  it  was provided  that save as otherwise, provided in the order,  no person  shall import any goods of the description  specified in  Schedule  I,  except under, and in  accordance  with,  a licence or a customs clearance permit granted by the Central Government, or by an officer specified in Schedule II.   For implementing  the  scheme of  controlling  imports,  diverse provisions  were  made  in  cls. 3  to  11  of  the  Imports (Control) Order. The Government of India makes known its import policy  every six  months  by  issuing  in  the  Government  Gazette   the procedure and the conditions for eligibility of licences and for the grant of import licences.  This policy is  published for the use of the public in a hand-book called the  "Import Trade  Control  Policy".   The policy  is  obviously  framed having regard to requirements for home consumption of commo- dities  to be imported, the foreign currency  situation  and the economy of the country as a whole. By  para  51  of the Import Trade  Control  Policy  for  the licensing  period  October 1958 to March 1959, a  scheme  of "Export  Promotion"  permitting imports depending  upon  the value of specified varieties of goods exported by the impro- per  was devised.  It was recited in that paragraph that  in certain  items,  the  inter-relation  between  imports   and exports  was direct and intimate and the ability  to  export some  manufactured  goods depended largely on  the  facility with  which the exporter or the manufacturer  could  procure the basic raw materials required in the manufacture.  With a view  to  promoting the export of such goods, a  scheme  was therefore  devised for the grant of special import  licences to 76 replace  the imported raw material component of the  product

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

exported or to provide an incentive for larger exports. Artsilk yarn and artsilk fabrics were covered by the  Export Promotion Scheme.  In Appendix 42, cl.2 of the Import  Trade Control  Policy.  for  October 1958 to March  1959,  it  was stated:               "With  a view to stimulate exports  of  Indian               artsilk fabrics, sarees, garments, hosiery and               other   artsilk  manufactures,  it  has   been               decided to grant import licences at the  ports               under  the  Export Promotion  Scheme  for  the               import  of  permissible varieties  of  artsilk               yarn  to actual exporters upto  the  following               percentage of the rupee equivalent of  foreign               exchange  earned on the basis of the f. o.  b.               value  of The artsilk goods exported,  or  the               value assessed by customs, whichever is less.               (i)   66-2/3  per cent in the case  of  Indian               artsilk sarees,               (ii)  100 per cent in the case of other Indian               artsilk   fabrics  including  Indian   artsilk               hosiery goods." The  petitioners, M/s.  Ram Chand Jagadish Chand are a  firm engaged  in.  business as exporters and importers.   In  the period October 1958 to March 1959, the petitioners  exported to Singapore, Bush Shirt Cloth, Glass Nylon, Art silk  Piece Goods and Superior Class Nylon of the total C.I.F. value  of Rs.  7,10,817/-,  and  relying upon cl. (2)  of  the  Export Promotion  Scheme  as outlined in the Import  Trade  Control Policy,  called  upon  the Controller of  Imports  to  issue licences  for artsilk yarn for Rs. 4,04,218.62 np.  and  Rs. 3,03,490.93 np. respectively for the months of February and 77 March 1959.  The petitioners claimed that they had, pursuant to  the Export Promotion Scheme, exported artsilk  goods  to Singapore  and had earned net foreign exchange of the  value of Rs. 7,07,709.55 np. and that they were entitled to import licences  for  artsilk yarn of that  amount.   In  September 1959,  the  petitioners  were  informed  by  the   Assistant Controller  of  Imports  and  Exports  that  a  consolidated licence  for  the  months of February and  March,  1959  was granted to them for import of artsilk goods of the value  of Rs. 3,19,354/-. It  appears  that the Government of India,  having  come  to learn  of  certain malpractice by the importers  of  artsilk yarn,  while suspending the Export Promotion Scheme as  from March  9,  1959,  announced  that  applications  which  were pending   with  the  port  licensing  authorities  will   be scrutinised  by a Committee and in May 1959, the  Government of India appointed a Committee for verification of the value of  good  exported.   The petitioners  appeared  before  the Committee  and furnished documentary evidence in support  of their  claim for 100% of the rupee equivalent of  the  cloth exported.  The Committee accepted as reasonable the rates at which  the  exported "’Flock Printed Nylon Dyed"  cloth  was exported by the petitioners, but in their view, the rates at which ",Bush Shirt Cloth" was exported could not be accepted as  reasonable and for the purpose of the  Export  Promotion Scheme,  the value of that cloth should be computed  at  the rate of Re. 1.50 np.- per yard of 36" width.  The Controller of licences accepted the recommendation of the Committee and issued  to  the  petitioners  an  import  licence  for   Rs. 3,19,354/-   only.    The  petitioners  after   making,   an in fructuous demand for a licence for the value of the goods exported,   filed  this  petition  under  Art.  32  of   the Constitution  for  a  writ or direction  in  the  nature  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

mandamus  directing  the  Chief Controller  of  Imports  and ,Exports to Avant to the petitioners an import. 78 licence for the months of February and March 1959 equivalent to  100% of the goods exported by them in relevant  previous months and in the alternative, to issue a writ of certiorari calling  for  the records and proceedings resulting  in  the issue of a licence of the value of Rs. 3,19,354/- and for an order  quashing the same and granting to the  petitioners  a licence   for  the  full  amount  claimed  by   them.    The petitioners  submitted that the Controller of  licences  had arbitrarily reduced the value of their import licence  under the  Export  Promotion  Scheme and  had  thereby  unlawfully infringed  their  fundamental right to  carry  on  business. They  also  claimed that the Controller was bound  to  grant licence  to import artsilk yarn under the  Export  Promotion Scheme for the full value of the goods exported by them, and in  failing to do so, had practiced  discrimination  against the petitioners, because several other importers of  artsilk yarn  who were the petitioners’ rivals in trade  during  the identical  period were given licences for  amounts  "ranging between 85 and 100 per cent of their exports".  In paragraph 22  of  their petition, the petitioners  submitted  a  table setting  out the names of eight such exporters,  the  amount and the percentages granted to such exporters. The  fundamental  right  of  a  citizen  to  carry  on   any occupation,  trade or business under Art. 19 (1)(g)  of  the Constitution  is not absolute : it is subject to  reasonable restrictions  which  may  be imposed by  the  state  in  the interests of the general public.  The right of the State  to impose controls in the larger interest of the general public on  imports  has accordingly not been denied:  nor  has  the authority  of  the  ’State to issue  the  Imports  (Control) Order,  1955  in  exercise of the powers  conferred  by  the Imports  and Exports (Control) Act providing for  imposition of  restrictions by permitting import of certain goods  only in  accordance with,,licences or customs permits granted  by the 79 Central  Government,,  been challenged.  It  was  suggested. somewhat  faintly by Mr. Viswanatha Sastri on behalf of  the petitioners  that  the power granted under c 1. (3)  of  the Imports  (Control) Order, 1955 was uncanalised power in  the matter  of  fixing  percentages  and  to  that  extent,  the authority imposed an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to carry on business.  But the authority to grant or  refuse to  grant  licences is conferred upon high officers  of  the State  and the grant of licences is governed by  the  Import Trade  Control Policy which is issued from time to time  and detailed provisions are made in the Imports (Control)  Order getting  ’out the grounds on which licences may be  refused, amended,  suspended  or cancelled (see cls. 6 to  9  of  the Order).  Provision to afford a bearing to the licence before action  is taken under cls. 6 to 9 is also made.  It  cannot therefore be said that the power conferred is uncanalised or arbitrary. The   argument  seriously  canvassed  by  counsel  for   the petitioners  was that relying upon cl. 2 of appendix  42  of the  Import  Trade  Control  Policy,  the  petitioners   had exported  artsilk fabrics, and had earned foreign  currency, and they could not, except for good and adequate reasons, be deprived of import licence to the full extent of 100% of the value of the artsilk fabrics exported.  The petitioners  say that they purchased the goods from various merchants and  by exporting those goods earned foreign exchange which was duly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

credited to their account by their bankers, and in  reducing the import licence to approximately 45% of the value of  the goods  exported, the State has, by executive order,  imposed an  unreasonable  restriction upon their right to  carry  on business.  But under el. 2 of the Export Promotion Scheme as outlined in appendix 42 in so far as it related to  licences for  import  of artsilk yarn, the Controller of  Imports  is authorised to grant licences upto the percentages  specified in that clause : there is no right thereby 80 created  to  the exporter to obtain a licence for  the  full value of the commodity exported.  Under el. 2 of the, scheme the  Controller  has the power to grant a  licence  for  any amount  upto  100% of the rupee equivalent  of  the  foreign exchange  earned  on the basis of the F.O.B.  value  of  the goods  exported.  By that clause, the exporter is not  given the  option  to claim an import licence for any  amount  not exceeding the value of the foreign exchange earned by export of goods.  The clause invests the Controller with authority, it does not impose an obligation upon him enforceable at the instance of the exporter, to issue a licence for the  amount (subject to the maximum prescribed. claimed by the exporter. The  power  is plainly discretionary.  It is true  that  the discretion   has   to  be  exercised  reasonably   and   not arbitrarily.  The, licensing authority would normally  issue an  import  licence  for 100% of the  value  of  the  goods exported,  but having regard to special considerations  such as  difficult  foreign exchange position  or  other  matters which  have a bearing on the general interest of the  State, import  licences for a smaller percentage may be granted  to the  exporters.  But by the use of the expression "upto  the following  percentage of the rupee equivalent" power to  fix arbitrarily a percentage of the value of the goods  exported for awarding an import licence is not granted. In granting a licence to the petitioners for Rs. 3,19,354/-, has  the  authority  been exercised  arbitrarily  or  is  it supported  by  some reasonbly  discernible  principle?   Ram Murth Sharma, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports in his affidavit stated that of the Export Promotion  Scheme wrongful  advantage was taken by some exporters  of  artsilk fabrics  :  it  was found by the Government  of  India  that invoice  values  or artificial silk fabrics were  inflated. by  the  exporters by more than 100% of the value  with  the object   of   exporting   "speculative"   commodities   like artificial 81 silk  yarn. , Sharma stated that ",as against  381  thousand yards of artificial silk fabrics exported during the  period January-June,  1957  at a value of about  Rs.  456  thousand i.e.,  at about Rs.2-0 L. per yard the merchants  sought  to show  the rise in price for the export of such goods  during October-March  1959  at Rs. 2-9-0 per yard so that  for  986 thousand yards exported, the invoice value shown was  28,799 thousand  rupees, even though the actual price of the  goods in the wholesale market had not at all risen to that  extent between  those two periods.  The index number  of  wholesale price in India in respect of "silk and rayon" fabrics during the month of June 1957 was 85 and during the month of  March 1959 it rose to 95.7 only thus showing a rise of about  11%. Against  this  rise, the rise in the price invoiced  by  the exporters showed a rise of over 125% during the span of  the same period.  This will clearly show that the aforesaid rise was  shown by merchants merely with a view to  get  licences for  higher  value for the import of speculative  item  like "Art Silk Yarn." Relying upon this evidence, counsel for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

Union contended that this perversion of the Export Promotion Scheme  had  serious repercussions on the  foreign  exchange position, and the scheme was suspended by notification dated March  6,  195 , and government directed  that  the  pending applications  for  import  licences  for  artsilk  yarn   be scrutinised  by a Committee appointed in that  behalf.   The Committee  scrutinised the cases of 1106  parties  including the  petitioners, and the petitioners were given a,  licence for Rs. 3,19,354/-, and by reducing the value of’ the import licence, no fundamental right of the petitioners under  Art. 19 of the Constitution was infringed. A  scrutiny of the applications for licences in view of  the misuse  of.  the  Export Promotion Scheme  and  granting  of licences  on the result of such scrutiny cannot be  regarded as imposing an 82 unreasonable  restriction.  The State is as  much  concerned with   earning   foreign   exchange   as   maintaining   and consolidating its export trade. if a large quantity of goods be dumped at excessive prices  foreign  markets to meet a temporary demand  in  the ultimate  result the export trade of the State  may  suffer. If  taking  advantage of temporary demands  in  the  foreign market, the exporters charge excessive prices which axe  not commensurate  with reasonable profits on the real  value  of the  goods  and  seek  to  invest  the  profits  earned,  in speculative  commodities  thereby endangering  the  internal economy of the country, the State may be justified in taking steps  to prevent the exporters from obtaining advantage  of such excessive profits by refusing to afford facilities  for importing  goods to the exporters who seek to rely upon  the export Value of the goods at inflated rates., The  affidavit of  Sharma shows that in a number of cases,,  the  importing firm in the foreign country was only a "’sister concerns  of the exporting house, and the exporters adopted the expedient of  inflating  the price with the object  of  adjusting  the excess  value received by them.  It appears  therefore  that some exporters under cover of the Export Promotion Scheme by inflating   the  prices  were  found  not  only  to   import speculative  varieties of goods for very much larger  values than  the real prices justified, but were suspected  by  the authorities  even  to  repatriate  foreign  assets   without disclosing  the  same to the State as required by  law.   It cannot  therefore  be  said that the power  granted  to  the licensing  authorities  to  grant  licences  only  upto  the maximum  spec ified in el. 2 of the Scheme is by itself  an unreasonable   restriction;   nor  will   the   notification directing scrutiny of all applications amount to imposing an unreasonable restriction. Counsel  for  the  petitioners however  submitted  that  the Controller  had  placed no evidence on the record  that  the petitioners have, for the goods 83  purchased  by  them  in the Indian  market,  not  paid M. 7,67,709.55  np.  or  that  any  part thereof  represented foreign assets intended to be repatriated contrary to  law. Counsel submitted that M/s.  V. M. S. Abdul Razak &  Company to whom the goods were consigned are not a "’Sister concern" of  the petitioners and that in the affidavit of the  Deputy Chief  Controller  of Imports and Exports it is  not  denied bat  the petitioners bad received the full value  for  which the goods were exported by them. But  in  considering  the  case  of  the  petitioners,   the Committee observed :               "The party has purchased Bush Shirt Cloth from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

             J.  C. Vakaria & Sons, Govardhandas  Iswardass               International    Trading   Agency,    Agwarwla               Brothers and Calcutta Silk Manufacturing  Co.,               Ltd.  Rates vary from Rs. 3.87 to Rs. 3.92.  x               x  x x neither the purchase vouchers  nor  the               export  invoices contain any  description  nor               give  any idea as to whether the material  was               Nylon, Rayon, Nynon, etc." The  committee also observed that the petitioners were  "not able to produce adequate justification of the prices of  Art Silk Bush Shirting Cloth.  Samples cannot be linked with the relative  purchase vouchers or export invoices."  They  then pointed out that the correspondence with M/s.  Abdul Razak & Company  did not give any "justification nor contained’  any description to link the goods with the materials sent,"  and in  the light of these findings, the  Committee  recommended that.  the  value of bush shirt’ cloth for the  purposes  of import licence be  calculated at the rate-of Re. 1.  50  nP. per ’Yard.     It   is   somewhat-  unfortunate   that   the Committed have not stated-in the reasons given by them  that Re.- 1. 50 nP. was the prevailing: market rate in respect of Bush  Shirt  Cloth at the time of the export in  the  Indian market.  But in paragraph 22 of the respondents’  affidavit, it-  is stated that "the petitioner firm has behalf  granted licence equal to 84 100%  of the value which has been arrived at  as  reasonable value of the exports effected by the firm." The  petitioners alleged that the decision of the  Committee was  arbitrary   the licensing authority contends  that  the decision was made after ascertaining the reasonable value in the Indian market at the material time of the goods exported by the petitioners.  The petitioners have not placed  before the court any independent evidence to show that the  current market  rate  of  "bush shirt  cloth"  which  was  exported, substantially exceeded the rate of Re. 1. 50 nP. per yard of 36" width.  In the circumstances, we would not be  justified in assuming that the Committee made an arbitrary decision in arriving  at the value of the bush shirt cloth exported  for the purpose of recommending the grant of import licence. The  contention  that  the order passed  by  the  Controller granting  a licence only for 45% of the value of  the  goods exported infringes the fundamental right of the  petitioners under   Art.  19  (1)  (g)  by  imposing   an   unreasonable restriction cannot therefore be sustained. Does the fact that the petitioners have been granted licence approximately  for  45%  of the total  value  of  the  goods exported   amount  to  discrimination  entitling   them   to protection of Art. 14 of the Constitution ? Under the Export Promotion  Scheme,  the petitioners  have  exported  artsilk goods  of  the value of Rs. 7,07,709.55.nP. and may  in  the normal course have been entitled to import licence for  100% of  the  value  of the goods exported  unless  there  was  a reduction in the value of the licence for imports on account of  certain circumstances such as general  deterioration  of the  foreign  exchange position or necessity to  conserve  a particular  currency  or other  circumstances  justifying  a departure from the maxima set opt in cl. 2 of 85 appendix  42 of the Export Promotion Scheme.  The  reduction may also be justified on grounds personal to the petitioners or  to a, group to which they belonged, Any  malpractice  or tinder-hand dealing may warrant such a reduction. It was the case of the respondents that many exporters  were guilty  of malpractices and with a view either to  speculate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

in artsilk goods or to repatriate unlawfully foreign assets, the value of the goods exported was unduly inflated.  In the order passed by the Committee appointed by the Government of India,  dealing  with the case of the  petitioners,  it  was observed  that the petitioners had business  relations  with certain  firms and that the rates at which bush shirt  cloth were  purchased  varied from Rs. 3.87 to Rs. 3.92  nP.   The Committee  was not satisfied that the  documentary  evidence produced by the petitioners related to the goods exported by them.   These  findings disclosed that, in the view  of  the Committee, there was reason to believe that the claim of the petitioners that they had purchased goods approximately  for the  prices at which they were exported, was not  made  out. The  Committee  accordingly recommended that  the  value  of "bush  shirt  cloth" should be computed at the rate  of  Rs. 1.50  nP.  per yard.  It is true that there is  no  definite evidence  on  the  record indicating that  was  the  current market rate, but the court may be justified in holding  that the members of the Committee who were vitally concerned with the trade in artsilk goods were conversant with the  current market  rates  of  the  cloth  which  was  exported  by  the petitioners. Counsel for the Union has placed before us in the course  of the hearing the report of the Committee in respect of  seven out  of the eight exporters who the petitioners claimed  had been given import licence for the full value of the exports. The  report of the Committee with regard to M/s.   Rajasthan Exporters I and Importers, Calcutta 86 is  not  placed  before us on the  plea that.,-it  is  not immediately available.  On a perusal ’.of the report of  the Committee  with  regard to, the other exporters, it  may  be stated that the claim of the petitioners that Raghunath  Rai Piyarilal  were given import licence for the full value  of the  goods  exported is not correct.  It  appears  from  the record  that only 40% of ’the F.O.B. value was to  be  taken for  "Glass, Nylon dved" exported in respect of  application No.  36.  Similar larly, in respect of application  No.  35, 40% (if the F.O.B. value was to be taken for the purpose  of granting  import licences.  It is true that in the cases  of the other importers  Premsukhdass Sitaram, Indian Exporters and  Importers Corporation, M/s.  Universal Watch  Emporium, M/s.   Jawahar Knitting Hosiery, M/s.  Vastralaya  Ltd.  and M/s.   Agarwala  Trading  Co.,  Ltd.,  the  Committee   have recommended  acceptance of the purchase prices submitted  by the   exporters  in  granting  import  licences.   It   may, therefore,  be  assumed that these  importers  were,  given licence for 1000% of the export value of the goods.  But the Committee have given reasons which appear to be prima  facie good for accepting the claims of these exporters’ If, on the materials   placed  before.  them,  the  Committee   were satisfied  that  there, was some  misconduct  or  under-hand dealing on the part of the petitioners, or that the evidence led before them justified the Committee in holding that  the goods  exported  were  not  of the  value’  claimed  by  the petitioners  in their invoices, an order  recommending  that import  licence may be granted for the value of  bush  shirt cloth  computed  on the basis of Re.1.50 nP. per  yard  does not. amount to discriminatory treatment of the  petitioners. Article  14 confers a guarantee of the equal  protection  of the law-a guarantee against arbitrary discrimination between persons  similarly circumstanced... On the materials  placed before  the  Committee.-.there. evidence to  show  that  the record produced by the  87

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

petitioners  was  unsatisfactory ; they were  not  satisfied that the prices which the petitioners said they had paid for purchasing  the  goods  were in truth paid.   If  there  was evidence  to show that in respect of other persons who  were in the opinion of the Committee found also to have  inflated the  prices ’in the manner adopted by :,the--  petitioners and  still  the Controller had granted  import  licences  to those persons for the full amount of the.. export value or a percentage  substantially  in excess of the  percentage  for which import licence was granted to the petitioners, a  case of  discrimin ation  could have been made out ; but  in  the absence  of such evidence, we do not think that any case  of discrimination is made out. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The  application  filed by M/s.  M. Shaams and  Company  for intervention is dismissed, because Miscellaneous Application No.  264  of 1960 which was filed by the applicants  in  the High  Court of Judicature at Bombay for a writ of  mandamus, direction  or order under Art. 226 of the Constitution  has been  dismissed by the High Court and the remedy  applicants is to file an appeal to. this Court. Petition dismissed. 88