{"id":149449,"date":"2011-06-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011"},"modified":"2017-08-30T08:17:50","modified_gmt":"2017-08-30T02:47:50","slug":"disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"Disco vs Union on 20 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Disco vs Union on 20 June, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Harsha Devani, R.M.Chhaya,<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/8452\/1998\t 23\/ 23\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No.8452 of 1998\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n For\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI\t\n\tSd\/- \n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE\nR.M.CHHAYA\t\tSd\/- \n=====================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nYES\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nYES\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=====================================================\n \n\nDISCO\nGARMENTS PVT LTD. & 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUNION\nOF INDIA & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n\n===================================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR UDAY JOSHI for\nM\/S\nTRIVEDI & GUPTA for the Petitioners \nMR\nPS CHAMPANERI for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n4. \n=====================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n           \n\t\t\tand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\nDate\n: 20\/06\/2011 \n\n \n\n\n ORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)<\/p>\n
(1)\t\tBy
\nway of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
\nthe petitioners have, inter alia, challenged the order dated
\n09.09.1996 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade
\nimposing fiscal penalty of Rs.10 lac (Annexure-F to the petition) and
\nhas also challenged the order dated 03.04.1998 passed by the
\nAppellate Committee in Case No.10 (Annexure-I to the petition)
\nwhereby the fiscal penalty was reduced to Rs.5 lac instead of Rs.10
\nlac.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\t\tThe
\npetitioners in this petition have, inter alia, prayed as under:\n<\/p>\n
“(a)\tYOUR
\nLORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
\nappropriate writ or order quashing the order imposing a fiscal
\npenalty of Rs.5 Lakhs imposed on the petitioners under the impugned
\norder (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\txxx<\/p>\n
(c)\tAlternatively,
\nYOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to waive the penalty be waived in entirety
\nsubject to the condition that the petitioner fulfills the balance
\nexport obligations in a period of 5 years to be granted from such
\ndate as this Hon’ble Court deems proper.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\txxx”\n<\/p>\n
(3)\t\tThe
\nfactual matrix arising out of this petition are that petitioner No.1
\nis a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act,
\n1956 and  was, at the relevant time, engaged in the business of
\nmanufacturing and exporting readymade garments. The
\npetitioner-Company was granted industrial approval vide order dated
\n31.05.1984 for manufacture of readymade garments. Petitioner No.2 is
\nthe shareholder of petitioner No.1-Company and is also director of
\nthe petitioner-Company.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\t\tThe
\nindustrial approval granted vide order dated 31.05.1984 by the
\nMinistry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development (SIA), New
\nDelhi, was valid upto 31.05.1986. Pursuant to the said approval, the
\npetitioners established a 100% export oriented unit at Navsari for
\nmanufacturing of the readymade garments. As per the conditions laid
\ndown under the said letter of approval, the entire production of
\nreadymade garments manufactured by the petitioners was to be exported
\nwithin a period of ten years with value addition of not less than
\n40%. It transpires from the record that the petitioners started
\nproduction on and from 30.07.1986.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\t\tIt
\nwas stated that the Director of the petitioner-Company was in-charge
\nof day-to-day affairs of the petitioner-Company. It was further
\nstated that in course of business petitioner No.2 met with a serious
\naccident while at Zambia and had to undergo extensive treatment at
\nZambia as well as at Mumbai, more particularly during the months of
\nJune and July 1992. It was stated that petitioner No.2 again met with
\nan accident in the month of April 1996, which arrested his free
\nmovement and affected his physical and mental condition. It was
\nstated that in addition to this because of general slackness in the
\nbusiness and more particularly on the imports from India the same
\nadversely affected the production activity of the petitioner-Company
\nin India and hence, the petitioner-Company could not work to its
\nfullest capacity and could not fulfill the export obligation.\n<\/p>\n
(6)\t\tAs
\nthe petitioner-Company did not fulfill the conditions of the letter
\nof approval, the respondent authority issued a notice dated
\n08.08.1995 as contemplated under section 4(L) for action under
\nsection 4-I of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and also
\nas contemplated under Clause 10 for action under Clause 8 of the
\nImports (Control) Order 1955 read with section 20(2) of the Foreign
\nTrade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. It was alleged in
\nthe\u00a0said notice that the petitioner-Company was required to
\nfulfill export obligation and was to achieve the value addition as
\nper the conditions of approval.\u00a0It was\u00a0alleged that the
\npetitioner-Company failed to furnish evidence in token of having
\nfulfilled the said export obligation and to achieve the value
\naddition to the satisfaction of the Development Commissioner and on
\nthat basis it was\u00a0alleged that the petitioner-Company has
\nmisutilized the goods so imported under the approval granted.\u00a0It
\nwas further alleged that\u00a0why action should not be taken as
\ncontemplated under section 4-I of the Act 1947 and asking the
\npetitioners to produce before it for hearing. In response to the said
\nnotice, the petitioners filed interim reply dated 11.11.1995. It
\ntranspires from the record that the respondent authority gave
\npersonal hearing on 15.11.1995 and, as per the directions given at
\nthat time, the petitioners also made further written statement dated
\n17.11.1995. It is the case of the petitioners that at the time of
\npersonal hearing all the relevant details as regards the goods
\nimported by the petitioners upto March 1986 and for the further
\nperiod of April 1986 to September 1995 and so also the value of goods
\nexported by the petitioner-Company upto September 1986 and thereafter
\nduring the period from October 1986 to November 1995 were submitted
\nbefore the authority. It is also stated that in order to get the
\ncorrect figures relating to the import and exports so submitted by
\nthe petitioner-Company, the same were referred to the Development
\nCommissioner, Kandla Zone and requested the said authority to certify
\nthe petitioners’ annual export performance for the preceding ten
\nyears. However, the petitioners were informed that the record are not
\ntraceable and the quarterly\/annual report submitted by the
\npetitioners since 1986 were also not traceable.\n<\/p>\n
(7)\t\tThe
\npetitioners thereafter, vide communication dated 07.04.1996 informed
\nthe respondent authority i.e. respondent No.3 herein that the
\npetitioner, since initiation of production, as 100% EOU has been
\ncalculating the value addition on the basis of the difference between
\nFOB value of all exports realised by the petitioners and the value of
\nall the inputs imported.\u00a0It was also brought to the notice of
\nthe authority that the petitioner-Company has been audited twice in
\nthe year by the government audit and at no point of time, any audit
\nobjection as regards calculation of the petitioner-Company has been
\nraised or found to be erroneous. It was submitted on behalf of the
\npetitioners before respondent No.3 that the formula applied by the
\nauthority is a new formula for computation of value addition and was
\nalso brought to the notice that in the concerned Import-Export Policy
\ni.e. Import-Export Policy for 1984-85 during period when the
\npetitioners were granted license to establish EOU there was no such
\nformula. It was stated that the petitioners also pointed out the
\npersonal difficulty on the part of the director and according to the
\npetitioners the value addition was to the tune of 42.69% for the
\nvalue of the goods imported and, therefore, submitted before the
\nauthority that there is no breach of the condition of the approval.\n<\/p>\n
(8)\t\tBy
\nimpugned order dated 09.09.1996 the adjudicating authority came to
\nthe conclusion that the petitioner-Company under the old formula had
\nachieved value addition to the tune of 28.45% whereas the prescribed
\nvalue addition was 40% and, therefore, found the petitioner-Company
\nguilty of contravening the provisions of Section 4-I of the Imports &
\nExports (Control) Act, 1947 and Clause 8(1) of the Import (Control)
\nOrder, 1955 read with Section 20(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development
\n& Regulation) Act, 1992 and imposed fiscal penalty of Rs.10 lac
\nunder section 4-K of the aforesaid Act, 1947 read with Section 20(2)
\nof the Act 1992.\n<\/p>\n
(9)\t\tBeing
\naggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-Company preferred an
\nappeal before the Appellate Committee. The Appellate Committee
\nconsidered the appeal of the petitioner-Company and found that the
\nmajor reason for shortfall was certainly beyond the control of the
\npetitioner-Company. However, found that there was a shortfall in
\nexport obligation as well as value addition beyond doubt and while
\nconsidering the case of the petitioner-Company in sympathetic manner,
\nconcluded that the grounds for non-fulfillment of the export
\nobligation were genuine problems. The Appellate Authority was pleased
\nto reduce the fiscal penalty from Rs.10 lac to Rs.5 lac and was
\npleased to partly allow the said appeal vide order dated 03.04.1998.
\nBeing aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the
\npresent petition is filled raising various grounds in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
(10)\t\tRespondent
\nNo.3 has filed an affidavit-in-reply and has countered the
\ncontentions raised by the petitioners. It has been contended that the
\norders impugned in the present
\npetition are legal, just and reasonable and have been passed
\nafter considering all aspects, including the extent of infringement
\ncommitted by the petitioner-firm. It has also been contended that the
\npetitioner-firm has committed default in fulfillment of export
\nobligation of the petitioner-unit as per the agreed term of the
\nletter of approval and the same having been confirmed beyond any
\ndoubt the penalty of Rs.5 lac, as per the order dated 03.04.1998, is
\njust and proper and has prayed to dismiss the petition.\n<\/p>\n
(11)\t\tHeard
\nMr. Uday Joshi, learned advocate for M\/s. Trivedi & Gupta for the
\npetitioners, and Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor
\nGeneral appearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
(12)\t\tMr.Joshi,
\nlearned advocate for the petitioners, urged that the very initiation
\nof the proceedings under 4-I
\nof the Act 1947 is bad and illegal. It was further pointed out that
\nit transpires from the show cause notice itself that the main and the
\nonly allegation is non-fulfillment of export obligation and that
\nwould not attract liability to penalty under any of the clauses of
\n4-I of the Act, 1947 and, therefore, the very initiation of
\nproceedings vide notice dated 08.08.1995 is not well-founded. It was
\nfurther argued that the very exercise of powers under section 4-I of
\nthe Act 1947 is without jurisdiction
\n and, therefore, both the orders impugned in the present petition
\ndeserve to be quashed and set aside. It was also argued that there is
\nno allegation against the petitioner-Company that the petitioners had
\nviolated any terms of the license. It was submitted that the
\npetitioners have used and\/or
\nutilized the goods imported under the approval for its own export
\noriented unit only. It was pointed out that only because the
\npetitioners could\u00a0not fulfill the export obligation to the full
\nextent, due to the reasons and difficulties narrated before the
\nauthorities, the petitioner-Company could not fulfill the obligation.
\nIt was further submitted that the petitioners had not sold or
\notherwise parted with any of the imported goods to any other persons.
\nIt was\u00a0therefore, submitted that there is no contravention of\u00a0
\nthe Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947, which warrants
\nimposition of the penalty as envisaged under section 4-I of the Act
\n1947. It was further submitted that the petitioners have not violated
\nany of the conditions of the approval.\n<\/p>\n
(12.1)\tMr.Joshi
\nalso pointed out that condition No.11 of the approval clearly lays
\ndown that the unit would be liable to pay penalties “if
\nleviable” and in such a case the authority will have to show as
\nto how it is attracted. It was further pointed out that\u00a0the said
\ncondition No.11 is not a blanket provision and before coming to the
\nconclusion that the penalty is leviable, the authority has to show
\nthat the petitioner-Company   has violated any conditions of the
\napproval. It was further pointed out that, however,
\nin the case of the petitioners non-fulfillment of export obligation
\nhas been wrongly termed as mis-utilization of goods in absence of any
\nallegation or proof thereof and both the authorities below have not
\napplied\u00a0their mind on the very applicability of the provisions
\nof section 4-I of the Act 1947. It was submitted that the respondents
\nlack jurisdiction
\nto proceed against the petitioners under section 4-I of the Act 1947
\nfor violation of the export obligation and, therefore, the
\nimpugned\u00a0notice as
\nwell as impugned
\norders in the present petition are contrary, unjust and against
\nfundamental principles of imposition of penalty. It was also
\nsubmitted that as far as the point of jurisdiction
\nand applicability of the provisions of section 4-I of the Act 1947 is
\nconcerned, the same has not been urged before the authorities below.
\nHowever, it being a pure question of law and goes to the very root of
\nthe matter, this Court, at the time of admission of the petition, has
\nbeen pleased to permit the petitioners to raise that point in the
\npresent petition. It was also submitted that
\nimpugned \u00a0show cause notice
\ndoes not pin-point breach of any conditions and does not envisage any
\neventuality as prescribed under any of the clauses of section 4-I of
\nthe Act 1947. It was therefore, emphasized that no penalty is
\nleviable under section 4-I of the Act. It was, therefore, submitted
\nthat both the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and
\nthe present petition be
\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Joshi, in order to buttress
\nhis argument, has relied upon the following judgments.\n<\/p>\n
(i)\t\tDeejay Neelum Marble
\nIndustries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2006 (202) E.L.T. 401
\n(Raj.);\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\t\tSuryovonics Ltd. Vs.
\nMinistry of Commerce, 2010 (254) E.L.T. 73 (A.P.); AND<\/p>\n
(iii)\tDKM Cassette P. Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
Vs. Union of India, 2010 (260) E.L.T. 404 (Del.).\n<\/p>\n
(13)\t\tAs
\nagainst this, Mr.P.S.Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General
\nappearing for the respondents, has supported the orders passed by
\nrespondent Nos.2 and 3. It was submitted that the orders do not call
\nfor any interference and it cannot be said that the authorities below
\nhave committed any error. It was submitted that after proper
\napplication of mind and on the basis of facts found on record,
\nthe\u00a0orders have rightly been passed by both the authorities
\nbelow. It was also submitted that non-mention of particular provision
\nin the show cause notice would not vitiate the penalty and\/or the
\nentire proceedings and inquiry. It was submitted that as per the
\nconditions laid down in the letter of approval it was incumbent upon
\nthe petitioner-Company to fulfill the export obligation. It was
\npointed out that non-fulfillment of export obligation therefore
\namounts to breach of undertaking and the same amounts to
\nmis-utilization of goods. It was submitted that\u00a0clause (a) of
\nsection 4-I of the Act 1947 would be attracted and, therefore, the
\nauthorities below have
\nrightly imposed fiscal penalty. It was also urged that the
\npetitioners have not taken the contentions viz. to the effect that
\nsection 4-I of the Act 1947 is not attracted either below the
\nadjudicating authority or before the appellate forum and, therefore,
\nthe petitioners are precluded from taking such contention for the
\nfirst time before this Court. It was therefore submitted that the
\npowers are rightly exercised by the respondent authorities and it
\nbeing an admitted position that the petitioners have not fulfilled
\nthe export obligation the petitioner-Company is liable to pay penalty
\nas envisaged under section 4-I of the Act 1947 and hence, urged that
\nthe present petition is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to
\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(14)\t\tAt
\nthe outset it may be noted that the petitioners have not urged either
\nbefore the adjudicating authority or the appellate\u00a0forum that
\nany provision of section 4-I of the Act 1947 is not attracted. It
\ntranspires from the record that the petitioners have amended the
\npetition at the time of admission and vide order dated 23.04.1999
\nwhile admitting the matter this Court had permitted the petitioners
\nto raise the said question of law to the effect that the case of the
\npetitioners does not fall within any of the clauses of section 4-I of
\nthe Act 1947 and, therefore, we see no reason not to permit the
\npetitioners to raise the same at the stage of final hearing, it being
\na question of law.\n<\/p>\n
(15)\t\tIn
\norder to appreciate the rival\u00a0contentions raised by both the
\nsides it would be necessary to refer to the relevant conditions of
\ngrant of approval dated 13.01.1994:\n<\/p>\n
“(1)\tThe entire (100%)
\nproduction shall be exported;\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tYou shall undertake to export
\nthe entire production (100%) excluding rejects not exceeding 5 (five)
\npercent for a period of 10 (ten) years. For this purpose, you will
\nfurnish the requisite legal argument\/bank guarantee;\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tThe value addition shall be a
\nminimum of 40% (Forty per cent);”\n<\/p>\n
\tAlong
\nwith the said letter by way of annexure conditions were prescribed
\nattached to the letter of intent and permission. The relevant
\nconditions (being condition Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11) to decide
\nthe present controversy are as under:\n<\/p>\n
“(1)\tThe production of the
\nundertaking under this scheme shall be undertaken to be manufactured
\nin bond and the customs authorities shall provide bond facilities to
\nan undertaking or unit approved for grant of special facilities under
\nthis scheme.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe entire production of
\nunit\/undertaking approved under this scheme shall be exported for a
\nperiod of 10 years or less from the date of commencing commercial
\nproduction as may be specified by\u00a0Government. A legal
\nundertaking in this regard will be executed by the undertaking. If
\nthe duration of the export obligation is not specified, it will be
\ndeemed as 10(Ten) years.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tImport of capital goods, raw
\nmaterials and components for production under this scheme shall be
\nexempt from customs duty.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tThe finished products
\nauthorised for manufacture under this scheme will be exempted from
\nexcise and other central levies.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tNo export benefits would be
\navailable on exports made under this scheme.\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tThe undertaking may be
\npermitted to sell in the domestic tariff area a percentage of
\n‘rejects’ which may not exceed 5% (or such percentage as may be fixed
\nby the Board) of authorised production under this scheme. On any such
\nsales within the domestic tariff area, the undertaking will pay
\nleviable customs duty at current rates on all imported inputs,
\ncentral excise duty leviable at current rates on all inputs therefore
\nas also on such ‘rejects’ sold in the domestic tariff area or an
\namount equal to the aggregate of such duties as may be fixed by
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
(7)\txxx<\/p>\n
(8)\txxx<\/p>\n
(9)\txxx<\/p>\n
(10)\txxx<\/p>\n
(11)\tIf the undertaking fails to
\nfulfill its export and other obligations under this scheme, it will
\nbe liable to pay all penalties, customs and excise duties and such
\nother amounts as may be decided by the Government.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is an
\nadmitted position that as the petitioners could not fulfill the
\nexport obligation and could not achieve the value addition as per
\nCondition No.3 enumerated above, a show cause notice came to be
\nissued on 08.08.1995. It is also worthwhile to enumerate Clause 2, 3,
\n4 and 5 of the said notice, which are as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“2.\tAND WHEREAS under the
\ncondition of the aforesaid letter of intent\/approval\/permission they
\ninter-alia were required to fulfill the expert obligation and to
\nachieve the value addition as per the said conditions.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tAND WHEREAS they have failed
\nto\u00a0furnish evidence in token of having fulfilled the said export
\nobligation and to achieve the value addition to the satisfaction of
\nthe Development Commissioner M\/s. Textiles Export Processing Zone,
\nM\/s. Textiles thereby also implying misutilisation of the goods
\nimported under the said letter of intent\/approval\/permission.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.\tAND WHEREAS the above
\ninfringement constitutes violation of the Import & Export Policy
\nin force at that point of time.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.\tNow, therefore, in exercise
\nof the powers vested in me under Section 4-K of the Imports &
\nExports (Control) Act, 1947 and under Clause 8 of the Imports
\n(Control) Order, 1955 read with Section 20(2) of the Foreign Trade
\n(Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, the said M\/s. Disco
\nGarments’ Navsari are hereby called upon to show cause within 30 days
\nof the receipt of this notice as to why action should not be taken
\nagainst them for imposition of penalty under Section 4-I of the said
\nAct and for debarring them and their Proprietor\/Partners\/Directors
\nfrom importing any goods, receiving import licences, customs
\nclearance permits and allotment of imported goods through STC\/MMTC or
\nany other similar agency under Clause 8(1) of the said Order.”\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom the
\nabove it is clear that the show cause notice issued under the
\nrelevant provisions of the Act and more particularly condition No.3
\nrecites that the petitioners failed to furnish evidence in token of
\nhaving fulfilled the export obligation and to achieve the value
\naddition to the satisfaction of the Development Commissioner and
\nthereby it is alleged that the same amount to misutilization of
\nimported goods under the letter of approval and, therefore, the show
\ncause notice came to be issued.\n<\/p>\n
(16)\t\tIt
\nalso transpires\u00a0from the record that in reply to the show cause
\nnotice the petitioners had clearly stated before the adjudicating
\nauthority that because of the accident as well as slackness in the
\nbusiness and also because of negligence on the part of the bankers of
\nthe petitioners, the consignment papers were sent to a wrong party in
\nDubai. It was also pointed out\u00a0by the petitioners that from the
\ndate of commencement of production till April 1995 the
\npetitioner-Company had totally exported goods worth Rs.4,12,31,195\/-
\nand had claimed that the value addition as per the calculation of the
\npetitioners was to the tune more than 42%.\n<\/p>\n
(17)\t\tWhile
\npassing the order-in-original dated 09.09.1996 respondent No.3 came
\nto the conclusion that even as per the report of the Development
\nCommissioner the petitioner firm commenced the production from
\n30.07.1986 and that they have not\u00a0fulfilled the export
\nobligation and has not achieved stipulated value addition came to the
\nconclusion that the petitioner-Company has achieved value addition
\nonly to the tune of 20.45% as against stipulated value addition of
\n40% and has thereby made default in export obligation and value
\naddition and have therefore rendered themselves guilty of
\ncontravention of the provisions of section 4-I of the Imports &
\nExports (Control) Act, 1947 and also as contemplated under Clause 10
\nfor action under Clause 8 of the Imports (Control) Order 1955 read
\nwith section 20(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development &
\nRegulation) Act, 1992 and, therefore, has been pleased to impose
\nfiscal penalty of Rs.10 lac.\n<\/p>\n
(18)\t\tThe
\nappellate forum i.e. respondent No.2 also in its\u00a0order dated
\n03.04.1998 while considering the appeal has come to the conclusion
\nthat there is shortfall in export obligation as well as value
\naddition beyond doubt. However, sympathetically considering the
\ndifficulties expressed by the petitioners has been pleased to reduce
\nthe fiscal penalty from Rs.10 lac to Rs.5 lac.\n<\/p>\n
(19)\t\tThe
\nimpugned show cause notice as well as the impugned orders in the
\npetition are, therefore, based on solitary ground that the
\npetitioners have not fulfilled the export obligation as per the
\nconditions of letter of approval and has not achieved the value
\naddition as per the conditions thereof and have committed breach of
\nundertaking.\n<\/p>\n
(20)\t\tIn
\nview of the aforesaid discussion and factual background of the case,
\nwe find that there is no allegation whatsoever to the effect that the
\npetitioner-Company have misapplied the goods imported under the
\nletter of approval nor there is any allegation against the
\npetitioner-Company that the goods manufactured out of the goods\u00a0so
\nimported have been diverted elsewhere. It is also an admitted
\nposition that neither the show cause notice nor the orders\u00a0impugned
\nin the present petition mention, which clause of section 4-I of the
\nAct 1947 is attracted and as aforesaid the only ground for initiation
\nof action under section 4-I of the Act 1947 is non-fulfillment of
\nexport obligation.\n<\/p>\n
(21)\t\tSection
\n4-I of the Act 1947, which is relevant for the present, reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“4-I\tLiability to penalty :\n<\/p>\n
(1) Any person who,-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)\tin relation to any goods or
\nmaterials which have been imported under any licence or letter of
\nauthority, uses or utilizes such goods or materials otherwise than in
\naccordance with the conditions of such licence or letter of
\nauthority, or<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tbeing a person to whom any
\nimported goods or materials have been delivered by recognized agency,
\nuses or utilizes such goods or materials or causes them to be used or
\nutilized, for any purpose other than the purpose for which they are
\ndelivered to him or<\/p>\n
\t(c)\thaving made a declaration
\nfor the purposes of
\nobtaining —\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)\ta licence or letter of
\nauthority to import any goods or materials, or<\/p>\n
\t(ii)\tallotment of any imported
\ngoods or materials, is found to have made in such declaration, any
\nstatement which is incorrect or false in material particulars; or<\/p>\n
(d)\tacquires, sells or otherwise
\nparts with or agrees to acquire, sell or otherwise part with, any
\nimported goods or materials in contravention of the conditions of any
\nlicence or letter of authority in pursuance of which such goods or
\nmaterials had been imported; or<\/p>\n
(e)\tacquires, sells or otherwise
\nparts with or agrees to acquire, sell or otherwise part with, any
\nimported goods or materials in contravention of the terms of any
\nallotment made by any recognized agency; or<\/p>\n
(f)\tcontravenes any direction
\ngiven under a control order with regard to the sale of goods or
\nmaterials which have been imported under any licence or letter of
\nauthority or which have been received from, or through, a recognized
\nagency, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five times
\nthe value of the goods or materials have been confiscated or are
\navailable for confiscation.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation – For the
\npurposes of this section, “value” has the meaning
\nassigned to it in sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Customs Act,
\n1962.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tIf any person abets the
\ncommission of any act or omissions, which act or omission would
\nrender any person liable to a penalty under sub-section (1) or
\nattempts to commit any act aforesaid, the person so abetting or
\nattempting should be made to a penalty not exceeding five
\ntimes the value of the goods or materials in respect of which such
\nabetment or attempt has been made, or one thousand rupees, whichever
\nis more whether or not such goods have been confiscated or are
\navailable for confiscation.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tA penalty imposed
\nunder sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), may, if it is not paid, be
\nrecovered as an arrear of land revenue. Provided that the
\nadjudicating authority may, by order attach any money belonging to,
\nor owed to, the person on whom any penalty has been imposed
\nunder sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), and such attachment shall
\nbe made in the same manner in which an attachment is made by a civil
\ncourt.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nabove provision is a penal provision which requires strict
\nconstruction of the same. It clearly lays down the importer’s
\nliability to pay penalty upto five times of the value of the import,
\nif any of the clauses enumerated in the said provision gets attracted
\nand by no stretch of imagination it can be culled out that
\nnon-fulfillment of export obligation would attract liability to pay
\npenalty under any of the clauses of section 4-I of the Act 1947. We
\nfind that it is not the basis on which the show cause notice is
\nissued. The authority below, while passing the order-in-original as
\nwell as the order-in-appeal have merely taken into consideration the
\nfailure on the part of the petitioners for non-fulfillment of export
\nobligation and the value addition and have straightway come to the
\nconclusion that provision of section 4-I of the Act 1947 is attracted
\nand have imposed fiscal penalty, as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
(22)\t\tThe
\nDelhi High Court in the case of  DKM Cassette P. Ltd. Vs. Union of
\nIndia, 2010 (260) E.L.T. 404 (Del.) while interpreting section
\n4-I of the Act 1947 as well as considering the identical case has
\nheld as under:\n<\/p>\n
“16.\t\tSection
\n4-I IEC Act is a penal provision which admits only of a strict
\nconstruction. It sets out the circumstances under which the
\nimporter’s liability to pay penalty up to five times the value
\nof the import gets attracted. A careful reading of the various
\nsub-clauses of Section 4-I IEC Act would show that the failure to
\nfulfill an export obligation is not listed out expressly as an
\ninstance attracting the liability to pay penalty thereunder.
\nIn the circumstances, if the ADGFT in the instant case intended to
\nlevy a penalty on the petitioner under Section 4-I IEC Act, it
\nwas incumbent on him to indicate which of the sub-clauses of Section
\n4-I(1) IEC Act stood attracted. On this aspect, there can be no doubt
\nthat there was non-application of mind by the ADGFT. Nothing is
\ndiscernible from his order dated 22nd April 1996 as to which of the
\nsub-clauses of Section 4-I IEC Act, if any, was attracted. The order
\nsimply states that the offence is under Section 4-I. This is wholly
\ninsufficient for the purposes of imposing a penalty on the
\nstrength of Section 4-I read with Section 4K of the IEC Act.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThe
\nneed for a penalty order having to specifically indicate the
\nprecise provision under which the penalty is being imposed was
\nemphasized by the Supreme Court in Amrit Food v. Commissioner of
\nCentral Excise, U.P. That was in the context of penalty
\nimposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was
\nobserved that in the absence of any indication as to which particular
\nclause of Rule 173Q had been contravened, the penalty could
\nnot have been imposed. The above judgment has been followed by High
\nCourts in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar v. Max G.B.
\nLimited and Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. Nakoda
\nTextile Industries Limited. The decision of this Court in Supercom
\nIndia Limited v. Directorate General Foreign Trade Ministry of
\nCommerce relied upon by Mr. Aggarwal is of no assistance since the
\nCourt proceed on the footing that sub-clause (1)(a) of Section 4-I
\napplied. No point appears to be have been urged, and therefore
\nconsidered, on whether in fact that sub-clause applied.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tIt
\nwas sought to be contended by Mr. Aggarwal that it was Section
\n4-I(1)(a) of the Act stood attracted. In the first place it must be
\nnoticed that this is not the basis on which the ADGFT proceeded to
\nimpose the penalty.\n<\/p>\n
A fresh reason cannot be supplied for the conclusion reached in the
\nsaid order. A reading of Section 4-I(1)(a) IEC Act would show that it
\nis attracted when the goods have been imported under any licence and
\nsuch goods have been used or utilized “otherwise than in
\naccordance with the conditions of such licence or letter of
\nauthority.” There was no finding by the ADGFT that the
\npetitioner has either misutilised or misdeclared the imported goods.
\nThere was no such finding by the ACC either. The surmise of the ACC
\nwas that failure to meet the export obligation would tantamount to
\nmisutilisation of the imported goods. There was no warrant for such a
\npresumption particularly in the absence of any express words to that
\neffect under Section 4-I(1)(a) of the IEC Act. The failure to meet
\nthe export obligation could be on account of various reasons not
\nrelatable to any of the sub-clauses under Section 4(I)(1). However,
\nit was incumbent on the ADGFT (and later the ACC)\u00a0while imposing
\na penalty
\nwith the aid of the said provision to precisely indicate which
\nsub-clause of such provision stood attracted in the facts of the
\npresent case. Clearly the petitioner had stated that it has utilized
\nthe imported goods in the manufacturing of video cassette shells. It
\ncould not export those goods on account of labour unrest. It cannot,
\ntherefore, be concluded that there was either misutilisation or
\nmisdeclaration by the petitioner to attract Section 4-I(1)(a) of the
\nIEC Act.”\n<\/p>\n
(23)\t\tSimilarly,
\nin the case of  Deejay Neelum Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union
\nof India, 2006 (202) E.L.T. 401 (Raj.), the High Court of
\nJudicature at Rajasthan while considering\u00a0an identical case has
\nalso held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“11.\tThe
\npetitioner has admittedly not violated condition No.3 had Condition
\nNo.10 and even any other condition mentioned in Schedule-I. The
\nSchedule-II appended with the licence pertains to export conditions
\nattached to the import licence dated 20-10-1980. According to the
\nrespondents the petitioner violated export conditions, specifically
\nthe condition No.4 and that warranted\u00a0initiation of proceedings
\nunder Section 4-I(1)(a) of the Act of 1947. The condition No.4 of
\nSchedule-II provides for earning foreign exchange by exporting
\nannually not less than 25% production for a period of five years from
\nthe 18th months after commissioning the plant and equipment and
\ncommencement of production. A reading of Section 4-I(1)(a) of the Act
\nof 1947 establishes it well that the proceedings to impose penalty
\ncan be instituted and penalty
\ncan be imposed, upon
\na licencee:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tin
\nrelation to any goods or materials which have been imported under any
\nlicence or letter of authority;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tuses
\nor utilise such goods or materials;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)otherwise
\nthen in accordance with the conditions of such licence or letter of
\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nthree ingredients to face action under Section 4-I(1)(a) of the Act
\nof 1947 relates to the use of imported goods and materials. These are
\nnot concerned to non performance with export conditions. Meaning
\nthereby, that the penalty
\nunder  Section 4-I of the Act of 1947 is against the violation of
\nuser obligations and not against export obligations. It is also
\npertinent to note that under the Act of 1947 which stood repealed
\nunder the Act of 1992 there is no provision for imposing any penalty
\nfor violation or not adherence of export obligations.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe
\nrespondents by notice impugned sought to institute proceedings
\nagainst the petitioner under  Section 4-1 of the Act of 1947 for
\nviolation of export obligations and not for any user obligation. It
\nis not the case of the respondents that the petitioner used or
\nutilized equipment and machineries imported under the licence dated
\n20-10-1980 otherwise then in accordance with the conditions of
\nlicence in question. The specific case of the respondents is that the
\npetitioner failed to earn foreign exchange in accordance with the
\ncondition No.4 of Schedule-II appended with the licence.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe
\ncondition No.4 of Schedule-II appended with the licence is an export
\nobligation and not a user obligation, therefore, initiation of
\nproceedings for violation of it, under  Section 4-I of the Act of
\n1947, is incompetent. The respondents lacks jurisdiction
\nto proceed against the petitioner against  Section
\n4-I of the Act of 1947 for violation of export obligation as penalty
\nunder  Section 4-I of the said Act can be imposed only if a licence
\nholder uses or utilise goods and materials imported under a licence
\notherwise then in accordance with the conditions of licence.”\n<\/p>\n
(24)\t\tSimilarly,
\nin the case of  Suryovonics Ltd. Vs. Ministry of Commerce, 2010
\n(254) E.L.T. 73 (A.P.), the Andhra Pradesh High Court while
\nconsidering\u00a0the alleged breach under section 4-I(1) of the Act
\n1947 has held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“12.\t\tThere
\ncannot be any dispute as to the attraction of the aforesaid
\nprovisions.\u00a0 On
\na bare reading it provides for a penalty\u00a0 where there is a
\nfailure discharge the export obligation from any person using or
\nutilizing such goods or materials otherwise than in accordance with
\nthe conditions of licence or later on authority.\u00a0 Considering
\naforesaid provisions in Taarika Exports and Another v. Union of India
\nAnd Another [2007 (212) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.) = (2007) 5 SCC 254] the
\nSupreme Court held that the plea of any such person to the fact that
\nthere is any incompatibility of\u00a0 compliance of obligation,
\ncannot be a valid ground to avoid the liability.\u00a0 In that case,
\nafter issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner for not
\nexporting goods utilizing the benefits under Act, 1947 and Act 1992,\u00a0
\nwithin the stipulated time by the said petitioner who is engaged in
\nexport and import activities under the Export and Import Code in
\npursuance of the licence granted to them, an explanation was given
\nstating that the conditions under the licence were unrealized and
\ntherefore non fulfillment of the application is beyond their
\ncontrol.\u00a0 The said explanation was rejected by the authorities
\nand imposed the penalty.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dismissal of the writ
\npetition by the High Court and further appeal to the Supreme Court,
\nit was held that such a plea cannot be entertained since it was
\nfound\u00a0 by the authority that there was\u00a0 an infraction of
\nthe conditions imposed by the licence.\u00a0 Therefore\u00a0 in those
\ncircumstances, it was held that the imposition of the penalty is
\ncorrect.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0This case stands dissimilar to the case on
\nhand on facts.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tFurther
\ncoming to the facts of the present case, as stated there is no
\nserious dispute on the part of the respondents both in the counter
\naffidavit filed in reply to the writ nor even during the course of
\narguments on behalf of the respondents about the factum of issuance
\nof licence to the petitioner and the events which lead to present
\nsituation.\u00a0 There is no dispute nor any
\nexplanation forthcoming on behalf of the respondents as to why the
\ndelays as pointed out by the writ petitioner since inception even at
\nthe stage of grant of the licence could not be avoided and as to how
\nthe petitioner can be held responsible.\u00a0 The delay as pointed
\nout is virtually runs to almost 54 months from 20.8.1986 to final
\napproval by IDBI on 20.2.1991.\u00a0 The petitioners cannot be blamed
\non this account.\u00a0 There is no dispute to the fact that the party
\nat the other end viz., ECD sold itself to M\/s.Cannon a multinational
\ncompany of Japan and a new establishment under the name and style
\n“United Solar Systems Corporation\u00a0 exist in the year
\n1991.\u00a0 Further the said new company in parallel sought to
\nestablish another unit on the same lines as that of the petitioner’s
\nPhase -I in the land situate at border of Mexico and tried to
\ntake advantage of NAFTA agreements and fresh\u00a0 agreements of
\ngoods between US and Mexico.\u00a0 There is thus\u00a0 a total
\nremission on the part of the said new company at the other end which
\nhas lead the petitioner to opt for alternatives apart from pursuing
\nexports to the extent possible.\u00a0\u00a0 Even this fortuitous
\ncircumstances are not within the bounds of the petitioner.\u00a0 The
\npetitioner admittedly exported to a tune of Rs.68.09\u00a0 lakhs , no
\ndoubt far below the original quantity. \u00a0However, the respondents
\nhave acted upon the application filed by the petitioner on 12.3.1992
\nseeking for debonding for the purpose of domestic sale and the second
\nrespondent did issue such permission from 4.6.92, 29.12.93 and
\n8.8.1995\u00a0 permitting withdrawal of 100% EOU scheme and , yet the
\nproceedings were initiated for imposition of penalty and nothing on
\nany of these aspects appears to have been taken into consideration.\u00a0\u00a0
\nEven the later proceedings would show that the petitioner was given
\nwaiver of condition regarding export obligation as per the
\nproceedings of the Government of India dated 21.12.1993 followed by
\nfurther waiver at different levels.\u00a0 There exists a debonding
\nletter which has been issued suo-moto both by the Development
\nCommissioner, Visakapatnam Export Processing Zone\u00a0 on 2.1.2000
\nand Joint Development Commissioner on 10.2.2000.\u00a0\u00a0 The
\neffect of these proceedings and permission granted vide proceedings
\ndated 4.6.92, 29.12.93 and 8.8.1995\u00a0 permitting withdrawal of
\n100% EOU scheme and the circumstances leading thereto are apparently
\nnot kept in view, before invocation of the aforesaid provisions under
\nSection 4-I of the Act, 1947.\u00a0 From these and the permission\u00a0
\ngranted by the concerned authorities it amply shows that the
\npetitioner cannot be found fault with any such failure nor there is
\nany intentional lapse or latches on his part.\u00a0 The acts of the
\ncompany at the other end changing its very nature and petitioner
\nfinding himself at the odd end would only show that there is no such
\nfailure or any intention on the part of the petitioner as such to
\nviolate any of the conditions on his own.\u00a0\u00a0 Therefore, it
\ncannot be said that the authorities can straightaway invoke the
\nprovisions under Section 4-I of the Act, 1947 and impose the
\npenalty.\u00a0 Surprisingly these aspects were not kept in view
\nbefore the order of penalty is thrust against the petitioner.
\n\u00a0Especially where there is no denial as to these events, the
\nrespondents cannot shut their eyes and invoke such onerous
\nprovision.\u00a0 It is well established that while interpreting any
\nprovision contemplating imposition of penalty, is on the face of it a
\npenal in nature, cannot be lightly invoked exercised without giving
\ndue adherence to the core facts and circumstances of the case.\u00a0
\nIt cannot be said as an open and shut case of\u00a0 clear violation
\nof the petitioner.\u00a0\u00a0 There are ample reasons which had to
\nled to present imbroglio. The respondents are well within the
\nknowledge of these circumstances and they themselves did act on the
\napplication of the petitioner for debonding\u00a0 and allowing
\ndomestic
\nsale and authorities cannot wholly disown.\u00a0\u00a0 This is not a
\ncase, where the petitioner himself on his own account without the
\nknowledge of the authorities, used or misdirected the materials.\u00a0
\nUnless an act of violation is directly attributable to the person,
\npenal liability cannot be extended.\u00a0 Each case has to be
\nconsidered on its own merits and circumstances.\u00a0 Therefore, we
\nare of the view that the entire impugned action since inception by
\ninvocation of provisions of section 4-I of the Act by the authorities
\nis totally arbitrary and illegal, apart from being unsustainable in
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case.”\n<\/p>\n
(24.1)\tWe
\nrespectfully agree with the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of other
\nHigh Courts and hold that the instant case does not fall in any of
\nthe clauses of Section section 4-I of the Act 1947.\n<\/p>\n
(25)\t\tIn
\nview of the foregoing discussion, in the instant case the only
\nallegation against the petitioners is that there is non-fulfillment
\nof export obligation and breach of condition of value addition to the
\ntune of 40%, which, as per the show cause notice dated 08.08.1995 is
\nconstrued as mis-utilization of goods imported. Considering the facts
\nof the present\u00a0case and the ratio laid down by the above
\nreferred judgments, we are of the opinion that mere non-fulfillment
\nof export obligation and not achieving value addition to the tune of
\n40% as per the conditions of the letter of approval would not fall
\nunder any of the clauses of section 4-I of the Act 1947. It is also
\nworthwhile to note that there are no other allegations whatsoever as
\nregards breach of any conditions of\u00a0grant of approval, except
\nwhat is stated in clause 3 of the impugned\u00a0show cause notice and
\neven the appellate authority, taking into consideration the genuine
\nproblems of the petitioners, has been pleased to reduce the fiscal
\npenalty from Rs.10 lac to Rs.5 lac, It cannot be concluded that there
\nis any misutilization or misdeclaration on the part of the
\npetitioners.\u00a0The respondents cannot be permitted to\u00a0substitute
\nthe reasons in order to attract the provision of Section 4-I of the
\nAct 1947. We therefore find that the impugned\u00a0orders dated
\n09.09.1996 and 03.04.1998 are unsustainable in the eyes of law and in
\nthe facts of the present\u00a0case the provisions of section 4-I of
\nthe Act 1947 are not attracted and, therefore, the petitioners are
\nnot liable to pay penalty. It is however, made clear that it would be
\nopen for the respondent authorities to take any other action for
\nnon-fulfillment of export obligation and non-achieving of value
\naddition as per letter of approval against the petitioners under any
\nother\u00a0Acts, Rules and Regulations in force.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
(26)\t\tThe
\npetition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated
\n09.09.1996 (Annexure-F to the petition) and order dated 03.04.1998
\n(Annexure-I to the petition) are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule
\nis made absolute and in the facts of the case there shall be no order
\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
[HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J]<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
[
\nR.M.CHHAYA, J ]<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Bhavesh*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Disco vs Union on 20 June, 2011 Author: Harsha Devani, R.M.Chhaya, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/8452\/1998 23\/ 23 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8452 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI Sd\/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Sd\/- ===================================================== 1 Whether […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149449","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDisco vs Union on 20 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Disco vs Union on 20 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-30T02:47:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Disco vs Union on 20 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-30T02:47:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":7049,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011\",\"name\":\"Disco vs Union on 20 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-30T02:47:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Disco vs Union on 20 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Disco vs Union on 20 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Disco vs Union on 20 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-30T02:47:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Disco vs Union on 20 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-30T02:47:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011"},"wordCount":7049,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011","name":"Disco vs Union on 20 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-30T02:47:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/disco-vs-union-on-20-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Disco vs Union on 20 June, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149449","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=149449"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149449\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149449"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149449"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149449"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}