Sophisticated Marbles And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2004 Latest Caselaw 84 Bom

ORDER

1. The petition is directed against the final order dated 18th December, 2003 incorporated at Exhibit - D to the petition. The challenge is at the instance of the petitioners wherein the fine and penalty is levied upon for importing marbles without the licence.

2. Whenever, petitioners import marble without licence, they pay fine and penalty, as may be levied under the provisions of the Customs Act.

3. In the past similar consignments were imported by the petitioners and in spite of levy of fine and penally the petitioners continued to imporl marble without any licence. In other words, penalty and fine did not get as deterrent to slop further illegal import. In other words, petitioners continued to indulge in illegal import of marble without licence and litigation ensued therefrom was used to get fine and penalty reduced on technical legal pleas. This petition is product of such illegal activities of the petitioners. An act constituting import of marble without licence has given rise to the present litigation which reached up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was pleased to allow the release of goods subject to imposition of duly, redemption fine and penalty as determined by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal has specifically observed in the order that it is clear from the facts that the fine imposed earlier did not act as deterrent to stop further illegal imports.

4. It is thus clear, that the petitioners who are in the business of marble and have become a habitual importer of goods inspite of the fact that they are very well aware of the law that the imports have to be backed by a valid licence. Inspite of this, if the petitioners are repeatedly including in importing marbles without licence, or subsequently obtain licence to cover up illegal imports then it would be a duly of writ Court, to arrest such tendency prevailing amongst the importers of the goods. The Apex Court in the case of HER Shankar and Ors. v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors. ruled that the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to facilitate avoidance of legal obligation and to commit breach of law for the lime being in force. The extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, which is of a discreationary nature and is to be exercised only to advance the interest of the justice, cannot certainly be employed in aid of such persons; who have no respect for the law of land and who are deliberately indulging in committing breach thereof. This Court would not be justified in invoking writ jurisdiction in favour of such persons. Writ jurisdiction is available to further the cause of regime of law, not to abrogate the same. In the facts of this case the consignments confiscated by the Customs authorities cannot be allowed to be released on the licence which were sought to be produced by the petitioners. The importers who are importing goods without licence and then seek to validate the import by obtaining subsequent licence or licences cannot be allowed to lake advantage of their own wrong. The petitioners are one of them.

5. The petition, in the circumstances, is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.

6. C.C. Expedited.