DARUKA & CO. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DARUKA & CO.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

August 31, 1973

[A. N. RAY, C.J., D. G. PALUA:ll, Y. V. CifANDuCHUD, P. N. BHAGWATJ, V. R. KRISHNA IYElt, JI.]

Import and Exports Act 1941-S. 3 read with the Export Conlrol Ord<r 1968-Export of Mica under the Scheme of Canalisation through the Ml11ttal1 and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. is violatfre ol Art. 14, 19(1 )(g) aitd 265 of the Constitution of India.

S. 3 of the Imports and Exporl8 Act 1947, empowers !11• Governmeat lo issne orders making provisions for prohibiting restricting or otherwise control-ling ·the imi)ons and goods of special description and the Export Control Order 1968, and provides that no person shall export goods of the descriptions •peci-ti.ed in Schedule-I of the said order, except ilnder licence granled by the Central Government etc. Mica scrap and 1'1ica waste ate included in _·item No. 22(a) of Part of Schedule-I of the 1968 order. The export of these items i:s alld~ on merits, ·or sribject to ceilings .or other conditions to be Speci· fled, from . time to. time.

The Con_troller of Imports and Exports issued the 'impugned notice and under it, the export of Mica was decided to be under the scheme of canalisatioo through the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India. The impugned notice further stated that this canalisation of export scheme would be effective from 24 January, 1972. With regard to .cases falling under. pre-canalisation commitment category, the Port Licensing :\uthorities might allow export if tke shipping documents produced by th~ eXporters were accompanied by documeRtl showing that the contracts were entered into with the foreign buyers before January 1972 i:>r telegraphic offer or acceptance were dated January 1972 and irrevocable Letter of Credit at site was opened in Bank of India, or in the foreign country before the 24 January, 1972.

The impugned notice further staled that the expo.rters who wished to avail themscJvcq of the prc--canalisation commitment category were to furnish parti-culars, such. as name of buyers, quantity, delivery period etc., at the otlic.e of the Controller of Impcrts and Exports.

The CorporatioP. further. issued Press Note prescribing the procedure to be adopted by the exporters taking recourse to the canalisation scheme. Further, Che Corporation would realise from the local suppliers as Service Charges not exceeding I per cent of the F.A.S. value. The foreign buyers would have to open unrestricted Letters of Credit in favour of the Corporation.

The Press Note further stated that where Letters of Credit had 1ieen opened on or after 24th January 1972 in the name of private agencies, foreign buyera would be requested so that tlie Letters of Credit were duly amended in the name of the Corporation and contracts linaliBed directly by shippers were .alao to be amended in favour. of the Corporation for the balance quantity. The payment due to the suppliers would be paid by cheque after realising the pro-coedi of sale from the foreign buyers, after retaining the marginal 1 per -cent of the fl. A. S. valuo as Service. Charges of the Corporation.

Afterwards, en representation from severa1 exporters, the Government issued an Export clarification Circular that in respect of cases where Letter of CreJit was opened before 31 March 1972, but the period of shipment had expired, exports might be allowed in the name of private parties, provided the shipment is made not beyond 30 lune 1972.

The petitioner challenged the canalisation of exports scheme, inttr a/la, 01> the followiq lfOund& :-

( f) ·ft wu not canof11a~on scheme. It was in fact scheme 1<1 lrU&fcr the busineas of the petitioner and goOO'Will in favour of the Corpora· lion which Is outside the purview of the Act. (2) The ocheme was an lllll"easonable restriction and it violated Art. 19(1)(9) of tho Constitution of India.

(3) the ·sCJieme \liolatecl Art. 14 of the Constitution because there was dlscrilnination between the exporters of Mica Powder and Mica Scrap aild Mica Waste.

(4) Fixing 24 January 1972 as the date for coming into force of thtt scheme was arbitrary. Letters of Credit had not reasonable relation to the objects of the Scheme. Therefore, fixing of the date of 24 January 1972 violates Art. 19. The extension _of the date from 24 January 1972 to 31st !\larch 1972, is ma/a fid• and is to offc-r benefits to some and deity tho 1ame to the petilioner.

(5) The levy of charsc of l per cent on F.A.S. value wi~hont con-ferring any corresponding benefit is an unreasonable restriction Ind is in substance, tax, and is, therefore, in contravention of Art. 26S of the Constitution.

DismiSlina the Petition, HELD Ii) The policies oJ imports or exports are fashioned not only with reference to internal or inteihational trade, but also on domestic policies. If the Government decides an economic policy that imports and exports should be by sel.0!~ channels or through the agency of selected cbannels, the court WOUid procee"d on the assumption that the decision is in the interest of the aene· ral !Rlblic, unless the contrary is shown. [576GJ

(ii) The acbeme of cariall!ation is not acquisition of right to carry on trade. The cannlisation acheme means that only the recognised agency can carry on ~-'i'he effect of refusal of liceneo to other traders is that they cannot carry on Jtbe trade ·in thOSe goods. The r;0rporation carries on trade itself but act became of any acquisition by the CorPQration of the right to carry on trade of the nnsuccessfol applicant for licence. Therefore, there is no violation of' Art. 31 or Art. 19(1) (f) of the Comtitution.

The dominant purpose of the scheme is canalisation of export and not to acquire the bu.<iness or goodwill of tho traders in favour of the CorPQration. -~• die Cimalioatioa of EIPorl throuah the CorPQration would ensure uniform IOOd flDl).ity of goods and an increase· in the volume of export, the restriction on traden Is reaaonable. There is no acquisition of property of traders. The Cor· Poration is an agency through which· export is canalised to the .otal exclusion of dtizena.

D•l'OIOll of ll.himii Goh/I v. Joint Chief Contruller of Imports and Exports [1962] 2 S.C.R. 73 and G/aas Chatmis Importers alld Users Ano· cUitlon ·v. Uni"" of Illdia (1962] 1 S.C.R. 862. referred to. [S76H-S77DJ

(ll) kinerals and Metals Ttadlng CorPQration is State-owned body. The Corporation Is appointed to undertake the sCheme for export of Mica. No p-eference is sbC1wn to the Corporation. Where canalisation is decided, no UC.nee ls sranted in favour of any one. Therefore, there is neither any com· Jitid<je, nor any cboice in the matter of grant of licence. It is total exclu-iilen of citiz.ens in order to enable all the country's exports IQ be made by one licemee. Therefore, Art. 14. ls not infringed. [S77EJ

(iv) Further, Art. 1911 )(g) is also not violated. If the traders wish to export quantities represented' by their contracts, they arc at liberty to avail themselves of the concea1ion of exporla through the CorPQration. It Is only if they will volunteer liot to accept the concessional offer that there would be self induced 1088 of foreign exchange eamill8S .. Furlher, the other advaotajlOS where the Corporation will enter into principal to principal contract with the

foreign. buyers are that the ·traders \.Viii b~ getting facilities of enteriiig into contract with the Corporation whi~h cnte-rs into back-to~back contract with 1he suppl~ers. The Service Charges of 1 per cent of the F.A.S. value cannot be described as loss because the Corpofntion is really servicing the coritracts. t578DJ

(v) The Service <;barge collec.te<l by the Corporation is not in the nature of iax and therefore, provisions of Art. 265 are not attracted. Fu11hcr, tht: levy of service charges is not under the 1947 Ac.t. The corpor~tion ts Hcensee ·under 1947 Act and the 1968 Order. The Corporation acts in accordance with the terms arid conditions of the licence. The government and the licensing authority under the Act, are not collecting any fee or charges from the traders. It is the Corwration which is collecting the Service Charges from the traders who avail the services of the Corporation. The Corporation is in the nature of cominercial. undertaking to \vhich licence has been gran.ted for the export of ~rtain commodities. The service Charges are nothing blt't qufd pro quo fer the oervicf# rendered by the Corporation. [578FJ

(vi) Further, fixing 24 January 1972 as the date for comin& into force of the,Canalization Scheme was also not arbitrary. If no date is fixed for Drioging into effect the canalization scheme with reference to opening of letter of credit it will give rise to ingenious devices of creating specious contracts. Con~racts n1ay h~ brought into existence by an~edatiog fiUCh.._ contracts. Therefore, the oPe.ning of Letters of Credit has rational relationship with the object of the canalisation scheme, and t]lere is no violation of Art. 14. [579D]

Con~racts Therefore, the object of the

(vii) Ordinarily, the import or export of goods under international contracts of sale frequently ·reqq.ires in modern times the protection of &QVemmentaJ alitho"ritY in the form of import or export licence. Where this ia the case, the parties usually provide in the contract which of them is to apply for the uece5-sary licence 3.nd what is to happen, it an application is refused. If the co_ntract is altogether silent, term is usually impli~d. mak.i.ng this the duty of ono party or _the: other. Normally, this duty is upon the seller particularly in the case_ of F.O.e. and F.A.S. contracts. Nothing has been shown that the contracts in the present ·case ''"ere not subject to the usual terms of con'Tact in iuch cases rhpt ,the export ·.vas subject to the licence laws of our _country for the export of goods. 'fherefore, the question that the petitioner would be sued by the foreign buyer ·Would not arise. [5790]

(}!iii) The impugned notice is not violative of Att. 14 of the Constitution on the &round that there is dicsrimination between the ex.porters of Mica powder and exporters of Mica scrap._ The exclusion of mica powder from the canalizi-tioI\ Scheme is to develop tnica powder industry in our country because this industry is developing a11d is practically nascent is growth. There is an intelli-gible differentia: between mica wwder on the one hand and mica scrap and w:aste on thC other in excluding mica powder from the canalisation scheme. [S80G]

(ix) The relaxation of. the date for opening Letters of Credit from 24 January 1972 to 31 March 1972 is not intended to be11efit infinentlal people. This relaxation w3.11J made because several exporters made representations that they did not understand the import restrictions and went on opening Letters of 'Credit. The relaxation was to minimise the hardships which the traders Were ·1jkely to suffer on account of the coming into force of the impugned Trade Notice. The ·relaxation was to prevent dislocation of trade on large scale. l"here was no 1nala fide on behalf of the Gover~ent in relaxing the date for opening the .Letters of Credit from .'24 January 1972 to 31 March 1972. [5828]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ PetitiDn No. 94 of 1972.

Under Article 32 · of the Constitution for fundamental rights.

the enforcement of

R.. K. Garg, S. C. Aggarwa/a, for the petitioner.

S. T. Desai, B. D. Sharma, M. N. Shroff, for respondents Nos. l

and 2.

B. Sen, O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadacha11ji & Ravinder Narain, for respondent No. 3.

The Judgment of the' Court was. delivered by

RAY, CJ. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the Trade Notice dated 29 January, 1972 referred to as the impugned nonce. The. import and export of goods is regulated by the Imports and Exports Act, 194 7 referred to as the 194 7 Act. Section 3 of the 194 7 Act empowers the Government to issue orders making pro· visions for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling the import and export of goods of special description. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 3 of the 194 7 Act the Central Government from time to time issued orders regulating export of goods. The Export Control Order 1968 referred to as the 1968 Order came into existence under these powers. Qause 3 ( 1) of the 1968 Order pro-vides that no person shall export goods of the description specified in Schedule 1 of the 1968 Order except under and in accordance with the licence granted by the Central Government or by an officer speci-fied, in Shedule 11 of the 1968 Order· Mica scrap and mica waste are included as item No. 22(a) of Part of Schedule 1 of the 1968 Order. Part of Schedule 1 of the 1968 Order enumerates the items the export of which is allowed on merits or .imbject to ceilings or other conditions to be specified form time to time.

The impugned Notice is issued by the Controller of Imports & Exports under the aforesaid statutory provisions. Under Trade Notice dated 13 March, 1968 reproducing Export Control Order No. 1/68-EIC dated 8 March, 1968 export of mica including mica "split-tings, blocks, scrap waste which are included in the list of items in Part of Shedule 1 of the Export Control Order was allowed on merits. Under the impugned notice the export of mica is decided to be under the scheme to canalise the export of all grades and variety of mica, excepting manufactured and fabricated mica, micanite, recon-&tituted mica, mica powder and mica paper through the Minerals and Metals_ Trading Corporation of India Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), The impugned Notice further states that this canalisation of export scheme will be effective from 24 January 1972. With regard to cases falling under pre-canalisation commitment cate-gory the port licensing authorities may allow export if the shipping documents produced by the exporters are accompanied by documents showing that the contract was entered into with the foreign buyers before 24 January, 1972 or telegraphic offer and acceptance is dated prior to -24 January, 1972 and irrevocable letter of credit at sight is opened in Bank in India or in foreign country before 24 January, 1972, 11-382SupCil74The impugned Notice further states that exporters who wish to avail wemse1ves of the pre-cana1isation commitment category are to furrush particulars on or before 15 February, 1972 at the office of the Controller of Imports & Exports. The particulars are first, full statement showing quantity, grade of the mica (blocks, splittings, conden!f()f films mica scrap and factory cuttings), delivery period, name of the b~yers, contract number and date with particulars of letter of credit number and date and second, quantities already shipped under these contracts and balance quantities to be ship~.

Pursuant to the decision notified under the impugned Notice the Corporation issued immediately thereafter Press Notice on export of mica prescribing the procedure to be adopted by the exporters taking recourse to the Canalisation ·Scheme.

The Press Note states that after consiaeration of the prevailin& trade practices and with view to causing least dislocation in the existing arrangements between the buyers abroad and the local sellers it has been decided to consid.er requests from the trade on furnishina full particulars of foreign buyers and other relevant details to nego· tiate sales of mica on behalf of the Corporation. The Corjxiration will enter into sale contract with the foreign buyers on principal . to principal basis. The Corporation will simultaneously enter into 'back to back' contract for procurement of mica with the authorised ~upplier. Foreign b11yers will open letter of credit in favour of the Corporation. The Corporation will realise from the local suppliers as !\&Vice charges not exceeding 1 % of the ; FAS value. The price at which sales will be concluded will not be less than the FAS prices fixed under the Government of India 'Mica Export Policy' Notifica-tion dated 27 June 1966 as amended from time to time or voluntarily adopted on the reommendation of the Mica Export Promotion Council. The foreign buyers will open confirmed, irrevocable, assign-able, divisible without recourse to drawer and un-restricted, letters of credit in favour of the Corporation.

The Press Note further states that where letters of credit have been opened on or after 24 January, 1972 in the name of private shippers, foreign buyers have to be requested through cable, so that the letters of credit are duly amended in the name of the Corporation and contracts finalised directly by shippers are also to be amended in favour of the Corpcration for the balance quantity. The payment due to the supplier will be paid by cheque after realising the proceeds of sales from the foreign buyers after retainiµg the marginal mie. per cent of. the FAS value as service charges of the Corporation.

Subsequent to the Press Note the petitioner wrote to the respon-dent and gave details of contracts accepted by the petitioner frOlll over-seas buyers prior to the· canalisation of exoort soheme which came into effect on 24 January, 1972. The petitioner stated that in some cases shipment had been made and there was balance to be shipPed subsequent to 24 January, 1972. The petitioner gave details of nine such contracts.

lll

After the publication of the impugned Notice several exporters represented that they did oot understand the import of restnctions and went on operung letters of credit w1tn respect to contracts entered into between tne exporters and the foreign buyers. 1 he Government with view to lessen the hardships on the traders issued an Export Clarification Circu1ar N\). 3 of 1972 dated 17 April 1972 that in respect of cases where letter of credit was opened before 31 March, 1912 but the period of shipment had expired, exports might be allowed in the name of private parties provided the shipment is made not beyond 30 June, 1972. The petitioner challenged . the canalisation of export scheme on the fouowing grounds. First, it is not canalisation scheme. It is in fact scheme to transfer the business of the petitioner and good-will in favour of the Corporation which is outside the purview of the Act. Second, the scheme is an unreasonable restriction in so far as it resUlts in loss of foreign exchange, loss of profit and enables con· tracting foreign buyers to avoid the contract and sue the petitioner for breach of the contract. Therefore, the scheme violates Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution· Third, after the proclamation of emergency it has to be found whether the canalisation scheme could have been made under the 194 7 Act. Fourth, the scheme violates Article 14 of the Constitution. There is discrimination between the exporters of mica powder and mica scrap and. mica waste. The exclusion of mica powder from the ambit of the scheme will lead to mica scrap and mica wasn: being converted into mica powder and enable individual . exporters to export the sal!le. Fifth, fixing 24 January, 1972 as the date for coming into force of the scheme with' referenec to the opening of letters of credit before that date is arbit-rary. Letters of credit have no reasonable relation to the object~ of the scheme. Therefore, the fixing of the date 24 January, 1972 violates Article 19. The extension of the date from 24 January, 1972 to 31 March 1972 is mala fide and is to confer benefit on some and deny the same to the petitioner. Sixth, the levy of charge of one per cent on FAS value without conferring any corresponding benefit is an unreasonable restriction and is in substance tax and is therefore in contravention of Article 265 of the Constitution.

The scheme of canalisation of export t~rough the Corporation is pursuance to section 3(1 )(a) of the 1947 Act and clause 6(1) of the 1968 Order. The 194 7 Act confers power to restrict, control or prohibit or otherwise control imports and exports. Gause 6 (1) of the 1968 order is as follows :-

"The licensing authority may . refuse to grant licence if the lif!ensing authority decides to canalize exports through special or specialised agencies or channels".

This Court in Davason of Bhimji Gohil v. Joint Chief Controller of Tmports & Exvorts (1963) 2 S.C.R. 73 considered the State policy rearding export of ore. The Government regulated exporr of ore through three classes of exporters. First, there were establi,hed shipoers who would be granted export quota on the average ol the

quantities exported during the years 1953, 1954 and 1955. The set0nd class consisted of mica-owners based on an annual average of the quantity of ore on which royalty was paid during the calender years 1953, 1954 and 1955. The State Trading Corporation .was .the third class which would be given quota on an ad hoc basis. The :itate Trading {:orpoiatton was allowed an adequate quota to. ~n­able . them. to maximise fhe exports of manganese ore. The question there was whether the withholding of the right to engage in export trade from new comer mine-owners not having export in certain basic years constituted an unreasonable restriction on their right to carry on business in violation of Article 19(l)(g) of the Cons-titution. The canalising of exports through special or specialised agencies was upheld on the ruling of this Court in Glass Chawns linpOYters & Users' Associalion v. Union of India (1962) 1 S.C.R. 862. . ID Glass Chatons case (supra) the relevant Exports Control Order was of the year 1958. That Control Order was made under section 3 of the 1947 Act. Clause 6 sub-clause {h) of the 1958 export Control Order conferred power on the Central Governrnent to refuse to grant licence if the licensing authority decided to cana-lise, export through special or specialised agencies or channels. The language of clause 6(h) of the 1958 Order is in identical language with clause 6(1) of the 1968 Order. The Constitutional validity of clause 6(h) of the 1958 Order was challenged there.

Licences for the import of glass chatons were issued only in favour of the State Trading Corporation. The applicants used to irr1port considerable quantities of glass chatons up to 1957. Those merchants challenged the grant of licence in favour of the State Trad-ing Corproation in preference over the applicants and also as mono-poly in favour of the Corporation. The order of the Central Govern-ment in terms of clause 6{h) of the Import Control Order 1955 allowing canalisation of export through the Corporation was also impeached to be in contravention of Article 19{1){f) and (g) and Article 31 of the Constitution. This Court in Glass Chatons case (supra) held that if the scheme of canalisation of imports is in the interest of the general public the refusal of lieence to outsiders would also be in the interest of the general public. The canalisation of import was held to be per se not an unreasonable restriction in the interest of the general public.

Policies of imports or exports are fashioned not only with refer-ence to internal or international trade but also on monetary policy, the development of agriculture and industries and even on the poli-tical policies of the country but rival theories and views may be held ~n such policies. If the Governrnent decides an economic policy that 1moort or export should be by selected channel or through selected agencies the court would proceed on the assumption thar the decision is in the interest of the general public unless the contrary is shown.

This Court in glass Chatons case (supra) said that the scheme of canalisation is not acquisition of right to carry on trade. The

canalisation scheme means that only the recognised agency can carry on trade. The effect of refusal ot licence to odler traaers is that they cannot carry on trade in those goods. The Corporation carries Qll traae itself but not because of any acquisition by the Corporation of the right to carry on trade of the unsuccessful applicant for licence. Theretore, there is nq violation of Article 31 or Article 19(l)(f) of the Constitution by th~ canalisation of export through the State Trading Corporaion.

In Devaron of Bhimji Gohil case([1]) (supra) it was said that the State Trading Corporation might 1!le special agency or channel fol' the purpose of enabling the counu;I tq maintain and develop the trade in the commodity . both from the ~ualitative and quantitative pou1ts of view. The canalisation cl export through the Corporation would ensure uniform good qnality of goods and al.so increase the volume of export.

Therefore the dominant purpose of . the scheme is canalisation of export and not to acquire the business or goodwill of traders in favour of the Co!J>?ration. The restriction on traders is reasonable. There is no acquisition of property of traders. The Corporation is an agency through which export is canalised to the total exclusiOn of citizens.

The contention that the impugned Notice showed preference for the Corporation in infringement of Article 14 is unsound. The Cor-poration is State OWRCd body. The Corporalion ii appomtoll ID undertake this export scheme. No preference is sbown. to tlae C.· poration. Where canalisation is decided no licence ia sranted in favour of any one. Therefore, there is neither any ci>mpetition nor any choice in the matter of grant of licence. It is total uelulion of citizens in order to enable all the country's exports to be made by one licencee.

The impugned Notice is challenged on the ground that 24 January, 1972 is an arbitrary fixation of date. The Press Note is impeached on the ground that the procedure for export through the Corporation where no irrevocable letters of credit were opened before 24 January, 19.72 is in reality not canalisation scheme but is !1 device to transfer the business and goodwill of the traders in favour . of the Corporation. The fallacy of the contention is in assuming : that traders have right to carry on the trade of exporting mica waste · and mica scrap after coming into force of the canalisation scheme on 24 January, 1972· The Press Note made it clear that the State did not want to disturb the market but intended to save the trade and to prevent Joss to the sellers. The State did not want to dislocate the commitments made by the traders to foreign buyers. Thia is precisely why the Press Note stilted that the Corporation was prepar ed to enter into contract with foreign buyers and to export irO<'ds to them provided they opened letters of credit. After the canalisation scheme had come into effect the contracts between the traders and the foreign buyers came to an end by operation of the statutory res-trictions. Therefore the State ~e concession to the traders in aider to eliminate hardship. The traders were· given the ch9ice to export

provided they fulfilled certain conditions. These were that they could export through the Corporation and they were to pay service charges. It 1s significant that if the Press Note had not laid down the proc.uure conrerrmg tne pnvuege or export.ing goods even atter 24 January, l!l /.l. m performance of contracts wluch were not supported by irrevocable letters of creo1t bemg opened pnor to 24 January, 1972 the traders wowd have ~uttered Joss. The traders could not perform the contracts with the foreign buyers after 24 January, 1972 where letters of credit had not been opened. Therefore, it JS apparent that the~e was no transfer of business or SQ<Xlwill in favour of the l.orpe>-rat1on.The contention with regard to contracts entered into before 24 January, 1972 but where letters of credit have not been opened before that date is that the traders are exposed to loss of business and loss of profits and there!>y unreasonable restrictions have been put, on the traders' right to carry on business in violation ot Article 19 ( l )(g). This contention is nnacceptable. If the traders wish to export quantities represented by such contracts they are at liberty to avail of the concession of exports through the Corporation. It is only if they will volunteer not to accept the concessional offer that there would be self induced loss of foreign exchange 'earning. Further the other advantages where the Corporation will enter into on principal to principal contract with foreign buyers are that the traders are getting the facilities of entering into contract with the Co'."]l)ra-tion which enters into back to back contract with the authorised suppliers· The service charges of i % of the FAS value cannot be described as loss because the Corporation is really servicing the contracts.

. The service charge collected by the Corporation is not in the nature of tax. 1he provisions of Article 265 are not therefore attracted. Counsel for the petitioner conntended that the levy of service charges was not authorised by the 1947 Act which permitted only levy of fee in respect of applications for issue or renewal of licence. The Corporation is licencee under the 194 7 Act and the 1968 Order. The Corporation acts in acccrdance with the terms and conditions of the licence It was said on behalf of the petitioner that section 4(a) of the 1947 Act and clause 4 of the 1968 Order excluded levy of any other fees under the Act. The Government and the licensing authority under the Act are not collecting any fee or charges from the traders. Tt is the Corporation which ·is collecting service charges from the traders who avail the services of the Coroe>-ration. The Corooration is in the nature of commercial undertaking to which licence has been granted for the export of certain com-modities. The service char2es are nothi11g but quid pro quo for the services rendered by the Corporatio'I.

Counsel for the. Ol'titioner challen2ed the impu2ned Notice as violative of Article 14 on the eround that the canalisation scheme nmd• disHnction !>-tween s•1bsistinq c'lntracts with foreign hu\-en for which irrevocable letters of credit were ooened before 241 January, 1972 and subsisting contracts with ~reign buyers for which letters of

Qfedit were not opened before 24 January, 1972. It is, ·th~, llaid that the opening of irrevocab.e Jetter of credit before 24 January, 19 rJ. .bad no reasonab.e re1at10nship to the object of tile sche.ue. Jt cannot be denied that date has to be fixed for bringing into effect . the canausatJ.on scheme. Contracts may be for short or Jong terms. Usually long term contracts are worked out through instalment delivery at interVaJs. It will depend on the terms of the contract whether each is an instalment contract severable from other instal· mcnts or whether it is one contract to be performed in instalments: On the construction of such contract depends whethel'. the breach of contrl!Ct is repudiation of the whole contract or whether it is severable breach giving rise to claim for compensation but not right to treat the whole contract as repudiated.

lit the present case, the affidavit evidence is that the obligation to export goods arises when the foreign buyers open letters of ~redit for the specified quantity of goods. If no date is fixed for bringing into effect the canalisation scheme with reference to opening of letter of credit it will give rise to ingenious devices of creating specious contracts. Contracts- may be brought into existence by antedating such contracts. The entire purpose of the canalisation scheme with view to increasing the export trade of the country, assisting small mine-owners, exporters and processors, checking smugghng in foreign exchange, under-invoicing, illegal acquisition of foreign cur-rency and eliminating the chances of contravention of various provi· sions of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and Exports (ControO Order will be stultified. The utility of State agency in the smooth running of export trade in such commodity as mica blocks, condensor filn1s, splittings, scrap or waste forms very signj/icant part of exports of our country. Therefore the opening of letters of credit has rational relationship with the obiect of the canalisation scheme and there is no violation of Article 14.

As corollary to the fixa(JOn of 24 January, 1972 as the <!ate counsel for the petitioner contended that the scheme would enable foreign buyers to sue for breach of contract. This contention is also unsound. Ordinarily, the import or export of goods u"der interm1tional Contracts of sale frequently requires, in modern times, the permission of governmental authority in the form of import or export licence. 'Nhere this is the case, the parties will usually provide in the contract which of them is to apply for the necessary licences and what is to happen if the application is refused. If the oontract is altogeth·r si'ent about licences or is expressed to be subject to licences without pro-Yidinl( who is to obtain them, term is usually implied making this the duty of one party or the other. Normally, this duty will be cast upon the seller particularly in the case of F.O.B. and F.A.S. con-tracts. There may be cases where the circumstances may be s•tt:h as to make the buver resDODsible for obtaining any necessary export licence. The tendency is to cast the duty up0n the pa·'1y best q••a [1]ified bv knowledge of the necessary facts or otherwise to obtain the licence. Once it is determined from the words of the contract or by impli· cation who is to apply for the licences, there is separate questionagain depending on the circumstaDcel of the particular. case, whether the duty is an ilbllolute one or more usually, whetbca" it is only to use all reasonable diligence to ~ the necessary licences. Performance of the contract in the latter case is only excused if the dvty has been performed but no licence has been obtained. If an absolute prohi-bition of export supervenes upon contract which is subject to ih:ence !he duty cannot be absolute. N~ has been shown tha~ contrac_ts in, the present case were not subject to the usual terms of contract m such cases that the export was subject to the licence laws of our country for the export of goods. It was said on behal)'. of the petitioner that the iµipugned Notice violated Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that there was discrimination between exporters of mica powder on the one band and exporters of mica scrap on the other. It was emphasised that the export of mica powder is not within the ambit of the canalisation scheme. The impugned Notice canalises export of all grades and varieties of mica eiwepGing jnanufaCured and fabricated mica (in-cluding die cut condenser films, spacers, bridges, washeres etc.) micanite, raconstituted mica, mica powder and mica paper. The mica· export policy published at pages 77-78 of the Export Trade Control Hand Book of Policy and Procedure 1970 published by the Govern-ment of India, Ministry of Foreign Trade deals with__shipment of any variety other than fabricated mica, inter alia, on the basis of an appli· cation in that behalf and compliance with other terms laid down in that policy and in particular opening irrevocable letter of credit by foreign buyer in Bank in India for 100% , of the invoice value of the goods. Shipment of fabricated mica under that policy con-tinued to remain free from the above stipulation regarding opening of 100% irrevocable letter of credit. Fabricated mica in that policy is said to include micanite, built up mica, mica tapes, mica cloth, mica silk, mica paper, mica folium and all varieties of mica cut or purched to specific shapes and sizes, and mica powder. It is said on behalf of the petitioner that as result of the exclusion of mica powder from the scope of the canalisation scheme, there are possibilities of mica waste and mica scrap being converted into mica .powder and exported by individual exporters and there may be ldss in foreign exbange. The affidavit evidence on behalf of the State is that the exclusion of mica powder from the cana]isation scheme is to develop mica powder industry in our country, because this industry is develop-ing and is practically nascent in gr0wth. Therefore, there is intelligible differentia between mica powder Ol\ the one hand and mica scrap and waste on the other, in excluding mica powder from the canalisation. scheme.

The State issued another Trade Notice on 20 April. 1972. This April 1972 Notice is also impeached. Under the April Notice which can be described as the second impugned Notice it is stated that the canalisation scheme provided in the impugned Not;ce of 29 January, 1972 is modified to the extent that shipments will be allowed up to · 30 June, 1972 against subsistin~ contracts for all grades and varieties of mica which had been execoted prior to 24 January. 1972 and in respect of which letters of credit have not been opened prior to 24

January, 1972 .. The petition_ers contend that the relaxation of the date_· for <>pening letters of credit from 24 January 1972 to 31 March, 1972 was mtended to. bendit infiui:ntial people. It was said that such in-fluential people went on opening letters of credit up to 31 March, 1972, because: of their previous knowl~ge that there. ~as going to be relaxation m the date. The contenuon of the petitioners was that this relaxation was maJa fide to help influential people. The affidavit evidence on behalf of the State is that this relaxation was made be cause several e~rs made representations that they did not under· stand the import of restrictions and went on opening letters of credit. On behalf of the State it was said that the relaxation was to minimi~ the hardships which the traders were likely io suffer on account of the coming into force of the impugned Trade Notice.

The three representations received by the Ministry are from the Bihar Mica Exporters' Association oated 25 January, 1972, the Mica Chamber of Commerce, Gudur, Andhra Pradesh dated 9 February. 1972 and the Bihar Mica Exporters' Association dated 16 March. 1972. Broadly stated, the representations of the traders were that the absence of any detailed information or direction as to the procedure· to be followed under the new system, presented three difficulties tn the traders. First, there was serious set back in usual flow of mica exports. Second, there was financial loss to the mica exporters. Third, there was financial crisis in the mica industry. The difficulties pointed out were that export oonsignments worth about Rs. 70 lakhs in the names of different exporters supported by valid contracts and letters of credit were under processing through Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports and Customs at Calcutta Port for shipment within 31 January, 1972. The Orders and Credit were not assignable, and were covered under Buyers' Import Licence which stipulated specifu: dates for shipment and consequently the letters of credit could not be extended or amende9 if so desired under the new system. Under similar conditions export ,consignments worth about Rs. 130 lakhs were lying ready for shipment in the month of February, 1972. IJoods worth about Rs. 150 lakhs were under manufacturing process against orders and letters of credit for shipment in March, 1972. Goods worth about . Rs. 150 lakhs were awaiting processing line against shipment commitment for the months of April to June, 1972. There were other c~rt contracts f?' shipment after the month of June, 1972. Som0 consignments of mica scrap, cuttings, powder, flakes and mica splittings were despatched by Rail Wagon from Giridh Kodarma to Calcutta Port for shipment by specific steamer. If for the reason of the changed pattern of export steamers were not availed or shipment was delayed th~ traders would suffi.er loss for non-shipment of the goods and incur railway demurrage :in~ Port Commissioners' demurrage and storage charges: The Association therefore asked for relief in the matter of export Ill accordance with the contractual terms of existing contracts.

The Andhra :i"radesh Chamber of Commerce added that there were· contracts pnor to 24 January, 1972 stating shipment date suh· seq~~thedto _24 January, 1972 ~or which letters of credit were to be esta is m due course. Certain contracts were executed in part and

to be be e&tablirhed in duo duo

for the remaining part lettm al credit -to be be e&tablirhed in duo duo counc priOI' to the stipulated lime 'Of lhipment. There were conlrlldl prior to 24 January, 1972 for which letters of credit orginally Cllta· blilhed had expired. Therefore, the Andhra Chamber of Commerce asked for extension of last date for registration of contracts up to 29 February, 1972.

In this background it cannot be said that the Government autho· ritii:s acted ma/a fide in extending the date of the opening of the letter of credit from 24 January, 1972 to 31 March, 1972. The relaxation was to minimise hardships to the traders. The relaxation was to in· vent dislocation of trade oil large scale. The Association gave iii· stances of traders who could not succeed in opening letters of credit for reasons beyond thelr control.

For these reasons, . the contentions of the petitioner fail. The peti-tion is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs.

Petition dismissed.