{"id":7380,"date":"1986-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986"},"modified":"2016-06-26T05:50:23","modified_gmt":"2016-06-26T00:20:23","slug":"union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs M\/S. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd And Anr on 12 September, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs M\/S. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd And Anr on 12 September, 1986<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 175, \t\t 1986 SCR (3) 771<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S. GODREJ SOAPS PVT. LTD AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/09\/1986\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nPATHAK, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR  175\t\t  1986 SCR  (3) 771\n 1986 SCC  (4) 260\t  JT 1986   408\n 1986 SCALE  (2)409\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1987 SC 179\t (2,4)\n F\t    1987 SC1794\t (14,23)\n RF\t    1989 SC 690\t (6)\n RF\t    1992 SC 696\t (5,12)\n\n\nACT:\n     Import Policy 1985-88:\n     List 8  of Part  2 of  Appendix 6\t- Additional licence\nholders-import of 'canalised' items - Permissibility of-This\nCourt's order  dated April  18, 1985 - 'Whether canalised or\notherwise'- Interpretation of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondents  purchased\t certain  quantity  of\tpalm\nkernel fatty  acid on  high seas basis from a firm which had\nimported it  on the strength of an additional licence issued\nto it  pursuant to  the order of this Court dated 18th April\n1985 in\t C.A. No.  1423 of  1981 Union of India v. Rajnikant\nBrothers.  The\t Customs  authorities\trefused\t to   permit\nclearance  of  the  goods  on  the  ground  that  they\twere\ncanalised items\t and could  not be  imported even under such\nadditional licences.\n     The  respondents\tfiled  a  petition  under  Art.\t 226\nchallenging the\t action of the Customs authorities. A Single\nJudge of  the High  Court permitted  the  clearance  of\t the\ngoods, which order was affirmed by the Division Bench.\n     In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant-\nUnion of  India it was contended that the direction given by\nthe High  Court was contrary to the directions given by this\nCourt in Raj Prakash's and Indo Afghan Chamber's cases.\n     On behalf of the respondents it was contended: (1) that\nthe holders  of the additional licences would be entitled to\nimport\titems\tpermissible  to\t  export  houses  under\t the\nadditional licence  category as\t per para  176 of the Import\nPolicy for  1378-73; (2)  that in  any event under Item 1 of\nAppendix 6  (import of\titems under open General Licence) of\nthe Import  Policy 1985-88,  raw-materials,  components\t and\nconsumables (non-iron  and steel  items)  other\t than  those\nincluded in  the Appendices  2, 3  Part A,  5 and  8 will be\npermissible by the actual user\n772\n(industrial); and (3) that the respondents were actual users\n(industrial) because  these were  used\tby  them  for  their\nproduction.\n     Allowing the appeal of the Union of India,\n^\n     HELD: 1. A diamond exporter can import the items he was\nentitled to  import under the Import Policy 1978-79 provided\nthey are  importable also  under the Import Policy ruling at\nthe time  of import. They are items which are open to import\nby an Export House holding an Additional Licence for sale to\neligible Actual\t Users (Industrial).  These are\t items which\ncould  be   directly  imported,\t  for  example,\t  the  items\nenumerated in  Part 2 of List 8 of Appendix Vl of the Import\nPolicy 1985-88.\t These are  items which are not `canalised'.\n[776 F-H]\n     2.\t `Canalised'   items  are   those  items  which\t are\nordinarily open\t to import  only  through  a  public  sector\nagency. Now although generally they are importable through a\npublic sector  agency only, it is permissible for the Import\nPolicy to  provide an exception to that rule, and to declare\nthat an\t importer may import a canalised item directly. [776\nH; 777 A]\n     3.\t Paragraph   75(1)  of\tthe  Import  Policy  1985-88\nentitles a  Trading House  holding an  Additional Licence to\ndirectly import\t canalised items in Appendix V Part A to the\nextent laid down in that Policy. There is nothing to prevent\nan Import Policy from providing in the future that an Export\nHouse holding  an Additional  Licence  can  directly  import\ncertain canalised  items also. In that event an Export House\nholding an  Additional Licence\twill be\t entitled to  import\nitems open ordinarily to direct import (non-canalised items)\nas  well  as  items  directly  importable  although  on\t the\ncanalised list.\t It is\tin that\t sense that  the Court could\nhave  intended\tto  define  the\t entitlement  of  a  diamond\nexporter. He  would be\tentitled to  import  items  \"whether\ncanalised or  not\", if\tthe Import  Policy prevailing at the\ntime of\t import permitted  him to import items falling under\neach category.\tThe Court  would not  know  whether  in\t the\nfuture certain canalised items could be imported directly by\nan  Export   House  holding   an  Additional   Licence.\t The\npossibility of\ta policy being framed in the future enabling\nan Export  House holding  an Additional\t Licence to directly\nimport items  which are 'non-canalised' and also items which\nare 'canalised'\t cannot be  ruled out.\tIt is  in this light\nthat the  Court can  be said to have used the words \"whether\ncanalised or otherwise\" in its order dated 18th April, 1985.\n[777 B-E]\n     Raj Prakash  Chemical's case, [1986] 2 SCC 297 and Indo\nAfghan Chamber\tof Commerce's  case,  AIR  1986\t S.C.  1567,\nfollowed.\n773\n     4.\t Only  such  items  could  be  imported\t by  diamond\nexporters under\t the Additional\t Licences granted to them as\ncould have  been imported  under the  Import Policy 1978-79,\nthe period  during which  the diamond  exporters had applied\nfor Export  House  Certificates\t and-  had  been  wrongfully\nrefused, and  were also\t importable under  the Import Policy\nprevailing at  the time\t of import which is the present case\nwas the\t Import Policy\t1985-88. These\twere the items which\nwere not  specifically banned  under  the  prevalent  Import\nPolicy. That  is the  construction. The\t items had  to\tpass\nthrough two  tests. These  should have been importable under\nthe Import Policy 1978-79. These should have been importable\nunder the  Import Policy 1985-88 in terms of the order dated\n18th April, 1985. [777 G-H; 778 A-B]\n     5. In  respect of\tPalm Kernel  Fatty Acid\t which is  a\ncanalised item\tlisted as  item 9  (v) in Appendix V Part of\nthe Import  Policy 1985-88,  there is  no provision  in that\nPolicy which  permits the  import of  such item by an Export\nHouse holding an Additional Licence. [779 B-C]\n     6.\t As  importation  of  canalised\t items\tdirectly  by\nholders of  additional licences are banned, it should not be\nconstrued to  have been\t permitted by virtue of the order of\nthis Court  and the  items sought to be imported do not come\nwithin List  8 of  Part 2 of Appendix 6 of the Import Policy\nof  1985-88   against  additional  Licences.  The  goods  in\nquestion which were sought for by the respondents fall under\nitem 9\tPart of\t Appendix 5  which is the canalised item and\nsuch cannot  be allowed\t to be\timported against  additional\nlicence granted\t pursuant to  the order\t of this Court dated\n18th April, 1385. [779 D-F]\n     7. The  goods were purchased by the respondents only on\n27th June,  1986 after\tthey were  aware of  the judgment of\nthis Court  in Raj  Prakash's case  as well  as Indo  Afghan\nChambers of  Commerce's case. No question of any restitution\nof rights arises. [779 F]\n     8.\t The   acid  in\t  question  comes   within  specific\nprohibition of\tItem 9 in Part-B Appendix 5 being fatty acid\nand acid oil which were importable only by the State Trading\nCorporation of India under open General Licence on the basis\nof foreign  exchange  released\tby  the\t Government  in\t its\nfavour. The  actual importation\t was not  by the respondents\nbut by somebody else. [780 A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3418 of
\n1986<\/span>
\n774<\/span>
\n     From the  Judgment and  order dated 22\/23.7.1986 of the
\nBombay High Court in Appeal No 565 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
     A.K. Ganguli and Sushma Relan for the Appellant.
\n     Soli  J.  Sorabjee,  J.B  Dadachanji,  R  Narain,\tMrs.
\nA.K.Verma, D.N.Mishra,\tAditya Narayan\tand Harish  N. Salve
\nfor the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SABYASACHI MUKHARJI,  J. This  is\tan  application\t for
\nspecial leave  to appeal  against the  order of the Division
\nBench of  the Bombay  High Court dated 22nd\/ 23rd July, 1986
\nfiled on behalf of the Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
     M\/s Godrej\t Soaps (P)  Limited, and  a shareholder\t and
\nDirector of  the said  company,\t Mr  A.B.  Godrej  who\twere
\npetitioners went  before  the  Bombay  High  Court  in\tWrit
\nPetition No.  1665 of  1986. The  said petitioners  who\t are
\nrespondents herein  (hereinafter described  as\trespondents)
\npurchased 544.860  Metric Tonnes of Palm Kamel Fatty Acid on
\nhigh sea  basis imported  under an  additional licence. They
\nchallenged the action of the Customs authorities refusing to
\npermit the  clearance of  the said Palm Karnel Fatty Acid in
\nview of the decision of this Court in Raj Prakash Chemical’s
\ncase [1986]  2 SCR 297 and Indo Afghan Chamber of Commerce’s
\ncase AIR 1986 S.C. 1567
\n     It may  be mentioned  that one  Messrs. Dimexon  a firm
\ncarrying  on   business\t of  importing\trough  diamonds\t and
\nexporting cut and polished diamonds were issued Export House
\nCertificate under  the import  policy for the period 1978-79
\nand certain  additional licences  in or\t about the  month of
\nJuly, 1986  covered by\tthe licensing period AM-79. The said
\nlicence was  claimed to\t have been issued in compliance with
\nthe order  of this  Court dated\t 18th April,  1985.  As\t the
\npurport\t of  that  order  was  the  subject  matter  of\t two
\nsubsequent decisions  of this  Court and  the genesis of the
\nright of  the present  respondents was claimed from the said
\ndecision, it  may not  be inappropriate to refer to the said
\ndecision. The  said decision  was given\t in Civil Appeal No.
\n1423 of\t 1984. This Court held that there was no requirement
\nof diversification  of exports\tas a condition for the grant
\nof Export  House Certificates  in the  Import Policy for the
\nyear 1978-79.  In that appeal, this Court confirmed the High
\nCourt’s judgment  quashing the\torder whereby the Government
\nhad refused Export House Certificates
\n775<\/span>
\non the\tground that  the petitioners  in those cases had not
\ndiversified its\t export and  as such  were not\tentitled  to
\nExport House  Certificates.  The  High\tCourt  quashed\tthat
\norder. This Court confirmed that direction of the High Court
\nand further directed the Union of India and its employees to
\nissue the  necessary Export  House Certificates for the year
\n1978-79 within\ta period  of three months from the date This
\nCourt further directed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Save and  except items which are not specifically
\n\t  banned under\tthe prevalent  import policy  at the
\n\t  time of  import, the respondents shall be entitled
\n\t  to import  all other\titems whether  canalised  or
\n\t  otherwise in\taccordance with\t the relevant rules.
\n\t  Appeals are  disposed of accordingly with no order
\n\t  as to\t costs.” (Emphasis  supplied in\t view of the
\n\t  contentions now  sought  to  be  raised  in  these
\n\t  proceedings).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This direction\twas given by a Bench of three learned judges
\nconsisting of  S. Murtaza  F. Ali, A. Varadarajan and one of
\nus (Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.)
\n     According to  the petitioners  before the\tBombay\tHigh
\nCourt in  pursuance of the order of this Court, Import Trade
\nControl\t Authority   issued  diverse   additional   licences
\nexpressly covered  by the licensing period AM-79 where under
\nthe description of the goods was as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “This\t licence   is  valid  for  import  of  items
\n\t  permissible  to  export  houses  under  additional
\n\t  licence category  as per para 176 of Import Policy
\n\t  for  1978-79\texcluding  those  items\t which\twere
\n\t  banned in  the Policy\t for the  period 1978-79 and
\n\t  which have been banned in the Import Export Policy
\n\t  volume 1, 1985-88. The additional licence category
\n\t  import shall\tbe subject to the provisions of para
\n\t  176 of the import policy for 1978-79.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It was  the contention  of the  petitioners before\t the
\nBombay High  Court that\t it was\t absolutely clear  that\t the
\nholders of  the said  licences would  be entitled  to import
\nitems permissible  to export  houses  under  the  additional
\nlicence category  as per  para 176  of the Import Policy for
\n1978-79.\n<\/p>\n
     It may  be mentioned  that the  said direction  of this
\nCourt came  up for  consideration before this Court again in
\nCivil Appeal  No. 4978\tof 1985-Raj Prakash Chemicals Ltd. &
\nAnr. v. Union of India & Ors.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
776<\/span><\/p>\n
(supra) This Court clarified the decision in that case which
\nwas rendered  by a  bench of three learned judges consisting
\nof V  Tulzapurkar, J.  and  both  of  us  (R.S.\t Pathak\t and
\nSabayasachi Mukharji, JJ).\n<\/p>\n
     As this  Court has observed in M\/s Indo Afghan Chambers
\nof Commerce  and another v. Union of India and other (supra)
\nthe order dated 18th April. 1985 has been considered by this
\nCourt in  Raj Prakash Chemicals Ltd. and another v. Union of
\nIndia & others (supra) to mean that:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “only such  items could  be  imported\t by  diamond
\n\t  exporters under the Additional Licences granted to
\n\t  them as  could have been imported under the Import
\n\t  Policy  1978-79,   the  period  during  which\t the
\n\t  diamond exporters  had applied  for  Export  House
\n\t  Certificates and  had been wrongfully refused, and
\n\t  were\talso  importable  under\t the  Import  Policy
\n\t  prevailing at\t the time  of import,  which in\t the
\n\t  present case\tis the\tImport Policy 1985-88. These
\n\t  were the  items which\t had not  been ‘specifically
\n\t  banned’ under\t the prevalent\tImport\tPolicy.\t The
\n\t  items had  to pass  through two tests. They should
\n\t  have been importable under the Import Policy 1978-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  79. They  should also\t have been  importable under
\n\t  the Import  Policy 1985-88  in terms\tof the order
\n\t  dated April 18, 1985.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Court  had no  occasion to\tconsider the significance of
\nthe words  “whether canalised or otherwise” mentioned in the
\norder dated  April 18, 1985 because that point did not arise
\nin the case before it The respondents rely on those words in
\nthis case  in order  to justify\t the import of the commodity
\nunder consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     What did  the Court intend by those words? We have seen
\nthat a diamond exporter can import the items he was entitled
\nto import  under the Import Policy 1978-79 provided they are
\nimportable also\t under the  Import Policy ruling at the time
\nof import  They are  items which  are open  to import  by an
\nExport House  holding an  Additional  Licence  for  sale  to
\neligible Actual\t Users (Industrial).  These are\t items which
\ncould  be   directly  imported,\t  for  example,\t  the  items
\nenumerated in Part 2 of List 8 of Appendix. Vl of the Import
\nPolicy 1985-88.\t These are  items which\t are not ‘canalised’
\n‘Canalised’ items  are those items which are ordinarily open
\nto import  only through a public sector agency. Now although
\ngenerally they are importable through a public
\n777<\/span>
\nsector agency  only, it is permissible for the Import Policy
\nto provide an exception to that rule, and to declare that an
\nimporter may import a canalised item directly. For instance,
\nparagraph 75(1)\t of the\t Import Policy\t1985-88\t entitles  a
\nTrading House  holding an  Additional  Licence\tto  directly
\nimport canalised  items in  Appendix V\tPart A to the extent
\nlaid down  in that  Policy. There  is nothing  to prevent an
\nImport Policy  from providing  in the  future that an Export
\nHouse holding  an Additional  Licence  can  directly  import
\ncertain canalised  items also. In that event, in view of the
\naforesaid discussion,  an Export House holding an Additional
\nLicence will  be entitled to import items open ordinarily to
\ndirect\timport\t (non-canalised\t items)\t as  well  as  items
\ndirectly importable although on the canalised list. It is in
\nthat sense  that the Court could have intended to define the
\nentitlement of\ta diamond  exporter. He would be entitled to
\nimport items  “whether canalised  or  not”,  if\t the  Import
\nPolicy prevailing  at the  time of  import permitted  him to
\nimport items  falling under  each category.  The Court would
\nnot know whether in the future certain canalised items could
\nbe  imported   directly\t by   an  Export  House\t holding  an
\nAdditional Licence. The possibility of a policy being framed
\nin the future enabling an Export House holding an Additional
\nLicence to  directly import  items which are ‘non-canalised’
\nand also  items which are ‘canalised’ cannot be ruled out It
\nis in this light that the Court can be said to have used the
\nwords “whether\tcanalised or  otherwise” in  its order dated
\n18th April, 1985.\n<\/p>\n
     The  point\t  from\ta   slightly  different\t  angle\t was
\nconsidered in  writ petition  No. 199 of 1986 in Indo Afghan
\nChambers of  Commerce with  Civil Appeal  No.  664  of\t1986
\n(supra) dated  15th May,  1986 by a bench consisting of both
\nof us  (R.S. Pathak  & Sabyasachi  Mukharji, JJ). There Indo
\nAfghan Chambers\t of Commerce  and its President aggrieved by
\nthe grant  of additional  licences to  the respondents,\t M\/s
\nRajnikant Brothers  and M\/s  Everest Gems  for the import of
\ndry fruits  came to  this Court. This Court examined some of
\nthe contentions\t This Court  reiterated that  by  the  order
\ndated 5th  March, 1986,\t this Court  has construed its order
\ndated 18th April, 1985 referred to hereinbefore to mean that
\nonly such items could be imported by diamond exporters under
\nthe Additional\tLicences granted  to them as could have been
\nimported under\tthe Import Policy 1978-79, the period during
\nwhich the  diamond exporters  had applied  for Export  House
\nCertificates and  had been wrongfully refused, and were also
\nimportable under the Import Policy prevailing at the time of
\nimport which in the present case was the Import Policy 1985-
\n88, i  e, it  meant to say that those importable at the time
\nwhen licence  was refused and must continue to be importable
\nat the time when import is sought, i.e., 1985-88. These were
\nthe items
\n778<\/span>
\nwhich were  not\t specifically  banned  under  the  prevalent
\nImport Policy  That is\tthe construction.  The items  had to
\npass through  two tests.  These should\thave been importable
\nunder the  Import Policy  1978-79. These  should  have\tbeen
\nimportable under  the Import  Policy 1985-88 in terms of the
\norder dated  18th April,  1985. The Court examined the facts
\nof that case.\n<\/p>\n
     Regarding dry fruits, this Court observed as follows:
\n\t  “In our  opinion the respondents diamond exporters
\n\t  are not  entitled to\timport dry  fruits under the
\n\t  Import  Policy   1985-88  under   the\t  Additional
\n\t  Licences possessed  by them.\tThey  are  also\t not
\n\t  entitled to  the benefit  extended by the judgment
\n\t  of this  Court dated\t5th  March,  1986  to  those
\n\t  diamond exporters  who had  imported\titems  under
\n\t  irrevocable\tletters\t  of   credit\topened\t and
\n\t  established before  18th October, 1985. It appears
\n\t  from the  record before  us that  the\t respondents
\n\t  diamond  exporters   opened  and  established\t the
\n\t  irrevocable letters of credit after that date.”
\n     Bearing in\t mind the  aforesaid enunciation  of law, we
\nhave  to   examine  this   case.  It  is  the  case  of\t the
\nrespondents, Godrej Soaps Co Ltd. and its Director that they
\nhave purchased\t544.860 Metric\tTonnes of  palm karnel fatty
\nacid (now called ‘the said acid’) on highseas basis from M\/s
\nDimexon. M\/s  Dimexon had  imported the\t said  acid  on\t the
\nstrength of  an additional  licence issued to it pursuant to
\nthe order  of this  Court dated\t 18th April,  1985 in  Civil
\nAppeal\tNo.   1423  of\t1984-Union  of\tIndia  v.  Rajnikant
\nBrothers. The  Customs authorities,  according to  the\tsaid
\nrespondents, refused to permit clearance of the said acid on
\nthe ground  that the  canalised items  could not be imported
\neven  under   such  additional\t licence.  The\trespondents,
\ntherefore, filed a writ petition in this Court requiring the
\nUnion  of  India  and  the  Customs  authorities  to  permit
\nclearance of  the said\tacid. It  may be mentioned, the said
\nacid was  not a canalised item under the Import Policy 1978-\n<\/p>\n
79. It\tis a  canalised item under the current Import Policy
\n1985-88.\n<\/p>\n
     As the  Government refused\t to permit  clearance of the
\nsaid goods  because  the  said\tgoods  were  canalised,\t the
\nlearned single\tjudge of  the Bombay High Court by its order
\ndated 10th  July, 1986\tpermitted the clearance of the goods
\nin question.\n<\/p>\n
     Aggrieved by  the said  order, Union of India preferred
\nan appeal  before the  Division Bench  of  the\tBombay\tHigh
\nCourt. The Division
\n779<\/span>
\nBench was  pleased to,\tby its\torder dated  23rd July 1986,
\nallow clearance\t of the\t goods. It  is the submission of the
\nUnion of  India that  this direction  was  contrary  to\t the
\ndirections given  in Raj  Prakash’s case  (supra)  and\tIndo
\nAfghan Chamber’s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
     In respect\t of  Palm  Karnel  Fatty  Acid\twhich  is  a
\ncanalised item listed as item 9(v) in Appendix V Part of the
\nImport Policy  1985-88, 13  there is  no provision  in\tthat
\nPolicy which  permits the  import of  such item by an Export
\nHouse holding an Additional Licence. Therefore, the claim of
\nthe diamond  exporters, or, as in this case a purchaser from
\nthe diamond  exporter, must  fail because  it is not open to
\nimport by  the diamond\texporter under\tany provision of the
\nImport Policy 1985-88.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, we  are unable\tto accept the contentions of
\nthe  respondents   and\tboth   on  grounds   of\t equity\t and
\nconstruction, we are of the opinion that this appeal must be
\nallowed and decision of the High Court of Bombay impugned in
\nthis appeal  must be  set aside. As importation of canalised
\nitems directly by holders of additional licences are banned,
\nit should  not be construed to have been permitted by virtue
\nof the\torder of  this Court  and the  items  sought  to  be
\nimported do  not come  within List 8 of Part 2 of Appendix 6
\nof the Import Policy of 1985-88 against additional licences.
\nThe  goods   in\t question  which  were\tsought\tfor  by\t the
\nrespondents fall  under item  9 Part  of Appendix 5 which is
\nthe canalised item and such cannot be allowed to be imported
\nagainst additional  licence granted pursuant to the order of
\nthis Court  dated 18th\tApril, 1985.  As we  have  mentioned
\nhereinbefore  the   respondents\t were  fully  aware  of\t the
\nposition in law and they purchased goods on 27th June, 1986,
\nthere is no equity in their favour.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  case no injustice would be done by this order.
\nThe goods  were purchased by the present petitioners only on
\n27th June,  1986 after\tthey were  aware of  the judgment of
\nthis Court  in Raj  Prakash’s case  (supra) as\twell as Indo
\nAfghan Chambers\t of Commerce’s\tcase (supra). No question of
\nany restitution of rights arises.\n<\/p>\n
     It was further submitted that in any event under item 1
\nof Appendix  6 (import\tof items under open General Licence)
\nof the Import Policy, 1985-88, raw materials, components and
\nconsumables (non-iron  and steel  items)  other\t than  those
\nincluded in  the Appendices  2, 3  Part A,  S and  8 will be
\npermissible  by\t  the  actual\tuser  (industrial).  It\t was
\nsubmitted that\tthe respondents\t herein\t were  actual  users
\n(industrial) because  these were  used\tby  them  for  their
\nproduction.  This  contention  cannot  be  accepted  firstly
\nbecause it comes within specific
\n780<\/span>
\nprohibition of\tItem 9\tin Part-B  of Appendix S being fatty
\nacid and  acid oil  which were\timportable only by the State
\nTrading Corporation  of India  under open General Licence on
\nthe basis  of foreign exchange released by the Government in
\nits favour.  Secondly the  actual importation was not by the
\npetitioners but\t by somebody else is mentioned hereinbefore,
\nbeing M\/s  Dimexon Co.\tIn the\tpremises, the  view  of\t the
\nBombay High Court cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
     In that  view of  the matter  special leave is granted.
\nThe appeal  is allowed.\t The order  of the  High Court under
\nchallenge is  set aside.  The appellant\t is entitled  to the
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
A.P.J.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n781<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs M\/S. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd And Anr on 12 September, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 175, 1986 SCR (3) 771 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. GODREJ SOAPS PVT. LTD AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/09\/1986 BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7380","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs M\/S. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd And Anr on 12 September, 1986 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs M\/S. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd And Anr on 12 September, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986\" \/>\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=\"1986-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-26T00:20:23+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs M\\\/S. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd And Anr on 12 September, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-26T00:20:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986\"},\"wordCount\":2598,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs M\\\/S. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd And Anr on 12 September, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-26T00:20:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs M\\\/S. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd And Anr on 12 September, 1986\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India vs M\/S. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd And Anr on 12 September, 1986 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs M\/S. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd And Anr on 12 September, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-26T00:20:23+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs M\/S. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd And Anr on 12 September, 1986","datePublished":"1986-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-26T00:20:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986"},"wordCount":2598,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986","name":"Union Of India vs M\/S. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd And Anr on 12 September, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-26T00:20:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-godrej-soaps-pvt-ltd-and-anr-on-12-september-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs M\/S. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd And Anr on 12 September, 1986"}]},{"@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\/7380","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=7380"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7380\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7380"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7380"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7380"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}