Holding

Clause 15(j) of the Export (Control) Order, 1988 is a saving provision applicable only to the products specifically approved in the export‑oriented unit’s licence; it does not exempt non‑basmati rice, so the export was unlawful and the company must pay the price differential and excise duty with interest.

Summary

Oswal Agro Furane Ltd., a 100% export‑oriented unit licensed to manufacture furfural and edible rice bran oil, sought to export non‑basmati rice and to sell the rice bran oil in the domestic market, invoking Clause 15(j) of the Export (Control) Order, 1988 as a blanket exemption. The Delhi High Court allowed these exports subject to a security for the price differential, but the Supreme Court held that Clause 15(j) is a saving provision limited to the products expressly approved in the licence and does not confer a new right to export other items such as non‑basmati rice. Consequently, the export of rice was unlawful and the company must pay the difference between the actual export price and the minimum price fixed by the authority. The Court also affirmed that the amendment of the industrial licence under Rule 16 of the 1952 Rules validly imposed an export obligation on rice bran oil, making the domestic sale illegal. Accordingly, Oswal Agro is liable to pay the price differential, the full excise duty on the rice bran oil cleared for domestic use, and interest at 18% per annum. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s interim orders.

Issues considered

The scope and nature of Clause 15(j) of the Export (Control) Order, 1988 – whether it is a saving clause limited to approved products or a general exemption for all outputs of a 100% export‑oriented unit.
Whether Oswal Agro could lawfully export non‑basmati rice and sell it below the minimum export price fixed by the authority.
The propriety of the Delhi High Court’s exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and the Supreme Court’s power to intervene under Article 136.
The validity of the amendment to the industrial licence under Rule 16 of the Registration and Licensing of Industrial Undertakings Rules, 1952, imposing an export condition on rice bran oil.
The liability for excise duty and interest on rice bran oil cleared for domestic sale in violation of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
The quantum of the amount payable as the difference between actual export price and the minimum price.
The applicability of interest on unpaid excise duty at the bank rate (18% per annum).

Legislation cited

Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944s. Section 3, s. Section SA
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951

Subjects

Export oriented unitsaving clauseExport Control Orderminimum export priceexcise dutyArticle 136Article 226statutory interpretationlicence amendmentinterest on taxconditional interim order

Judgment

AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PRODUCTS ETC. A
v.
OSWAL AGRO FURANE AND ORS.

APRIL 30, 1996

[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] B

Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947:

Export Oriented Unit--100% exp01t of product-Other than those indi-
cated in industrial licence-Imposition of trade restrictions including fo:ation c
of minimum price for export-{fnit contended such restrictions not applicable
to it in view of saving provisions of Clause 15(j)-Held : Clause 15(j)
applicable only to those products indicated in industrial licence not saved
under the Clause-Trade restrictions applicable in respect of these
products-Fixing of minimum price held valid.
D
Registration and Licensing of Industrial Undertakings Rules, 1952 :
Rule 16.

Export--Indust1ial licence-Variation or amendment of--Pennissible at
the instance of the undertaking-Export of product not indicated in original E
licence-Subsequently the undertaking expressed willingness to export said
product indicating amount of foreign exchange to be eame!f-Accordingly
Licence amended making amendment a condition-Held : amendment was
valid and the undertaking obliged to export said product pursuant thereto--In-
dustrie£ (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.
F
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944: Sections 3 and SA.

100% Export Oriented Unit-Production of excisable goods-Sold
within country instead of exporting them-No pennission obtained from
authorities-Excise duty not paid-Non-payment of Excise duty not disclosed · G
in writ petition filed before High Court-High Court by interim order pennitted
unit to clear goods without payment of excise duty-Held : in absence of
pemiission from authorities to sell goods within country, unit liable to pay full
amount of excise duty-Since the unit, a commercial organisation, obtained
unfair and undue advantage from High Court the amount due was a bank
loan on which interest at 18% per annum was payable. H
73
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Constitution of India, 1950: ·

Altic/es 136 and 226--Re/ief--lnterest on amount due to Govem-
ment-bzcorrect order obtained from High Coult by company-Thereby no
excise duty paid and amount invested in its business-Held : amount due to
B be treated as bank loaJt-flence, while paying excise duty company liable to
pay interest at bank rate.

Articles 136 and 226-F.,xport of goods-At price less than minimum
price by virtue of unwarranted interim order by High Coult-Conditional order
passed by Supreme Court that company would make good the difference
C between minimum price and actual price if export was in violation of
law-Held : company obtained unfair and undue advantage as a result of
interim order of High Coult-ft would be incumbent on Supreme Coult to
inteifere under Article 136 and grant appropriate relief-Export qs· well as its
price in violation of laW-Company liable to pay difference between minimum
price and actual export price-Even thought if valid authorisation was issued
D for export the company was liable to pay only 5% commission but it made
export in violation of law and under conditional orders passed by Supreme
Court, it could not be allowed to say it was not liable to pay difference.

Articles 136 and 226--Process of CouTt-Abuse of-Suppression of
E material fact-Writ petition filed by company before Delhi High
Court-witlzout making any reference to its earlier petiti01z filed before Punjab
and Haryrma High Court in respect of same matter-Statements in both writ
petitions contrary to each other--Held: had company disclosed details of its
earlier petiti01~ Delhi High Court would not have entertained the petition.

F Inte!pretation of Statutes :

Saving provision-Merely preserved right or obligation that existed did
not and could not confer any new or additional right--lt is different from
exemption provision.

G The Government of India, Ministry of commerce issued a notifica-
tion whereby a scheme was formulated to facilitate setting up of 100%
export oriented units. The respondents were granted industrial licence to
manufacture Furfural and edible rice bran oil in a 100% export oriented
project. This licence was issued subject to various conditions, one of which
H was Condition No. (vi) which stated that the entire 100% production shall
AGRICULTURAL AND PROCF.sSED FOOD POTS. v. OSWAL AGRO FURANE 75

be exported. The Government of India in exercise of its powers under A
Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, issued the
Export (Control) Order, 1988 and it came into force with immediate effect.
The new order imposed a restriction to the effect that no person shall
export any goods of the description specified in Schedule I to the Order.
However, Clause 15(j) of the said new Order stipulated that this Order B
shall not apply to products manufactured in an approved. 100% Export
Oriented Units.

The aforesaid Export (Control) Order 1988 was amended so as to
include in Part-C in Schedule I in List II a number of items including
non·basmati rice which was allowed to be exported against registration~ C
cum-allocation certificate issued by the appellant and also fixed its mini-
mum export price.

The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging
the validity of Clause No. (vi). This writ petition was subsequently trans· D
ferred to this Court. Thereafter, the respondents filed another writ petition
challenging the validity of Clause lS(j) of the Export Control Order, 1988
without making any reference to the earlier petition. The High Court
passed an interim order permitting the respondents to export non-basmati
rice subject to the condition that the respondents would furnish a security
of the minimum price fixed by the appellants and the price at which E
non-basmati rice was exported. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment
the appellants preferred the present appeal in which this Court directed
that the export was being permitted subject to the condition that the
respondents would make good the difference in dollars if ultimately it was
held that they were not entitled to export the said rice. F

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the industrial
licence which has been granted was only for the manufacture of two items,
namely, Furfural and edible rice bran oil and this was subject to the
condition that ~be entire 100% production of these items was to be ex-
ported; that according to Clause 15 (j) or the Export (Control) Order, 1988, G
only the export of Furfural and its bye product edible rice bran oil was
saved from the operation of the Export (Control) Order 1988 and not the
export of non-basmati rice; that the filing of the writ petition in the High
Court without making any reference to the earlier petition was a clear
abuse of the process of the Court; and that the respondents were liable to H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A pay the difference between the actual export price and the minimum export
price fixed by the appellants.

On behalf of the respondents it was contended that Clause lS(j) was
not confined to the end product governed by the Industries (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1951 but is also extended to the bye-products; that
B they on their own volition could export other items manufactured in the
factory; that Clause 15(j) brought in the geographical or topographical
concept thereby meaning that whatever was manufactured in the export
oriented unit was free from the shackles of the Export (Control) Order,
1988; that by using the plural word 'products' in Clause 15(j), the implica-
C tion was that it was to apply to all the products manufactured in the unit;
that the appellant was entitled to only 5% of the minimum price fixed and
not the difference between the actual sale price and the minimum price
fixed; and that even if the High Court had taken an erroneous view this
Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under· Article 136 of the
D Constitution should not interfere.

Allowing the appeal, thii; Court

HELD : 1.1. Clause 15(j) of the Export (Control) Order, 1988 is a
saving provision and not an exemption clause. A saving provision or clause
E merely preserves what exists. Clauses 3 and 15 of the export (Control)
Order have to be read togeth1!r. Clause 3 places restrictions and makes
provision with regard to export of goods specified in Schedule I and
Schedule III of the Order. If, however, a case falls within any of the various
provisions of sub-clauses of Clause 15, then in that case only the Order
F does not apply. Clause 15, to put it differently, merely preserves any right
or obligation which existed prior to the issuance of the Export (Control)
Order and it did not, and could not, confer any new or additional right.
Clause 15(i) merely preserves the right of the respondent to export those
products which it could expol't as on the date of the Export (Control)
Order, 1988 and any amendment in the schedule to the said Order would
G not and cannot give the respondent a right to export non-basmati rice,
which right it did not have on the date of the Export (Control) Order.
When the Export (Control) order 1988 was promulgated, the respondent
had an industrial licence which made it obligatory to export its entire
production of Furfural. It was this right to export Furfural which was
H preserved by Clause 15(j) and the respondent could make its exports
AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PDTS. v. OSWALAGRO FURANE 77

without following the provisions of the said Order. (90-B; 91-A-D] A

1.2. Keeping in view the nature of a saving provision it is not correct
to say that every product manufactured in a 100% export oriented unit was
exempt from the applicability of the provisions of the said Order. Clause
15 clearly provides that what is saved are the products for which the export
oriented unit is approved and not any other product manufactured by it. B
The word "approved" in Clause 15(j) must be tead both with the words
"products" as well as with words the "export oriented unit". A unit is
granted approval, as an export oriented unit in respect of specific product
to be manufactured by it. The names of those products are indicated in
the licence granting approval and the saving Clause 15(j) is applicable to c
those products the manufacture and export of which has been approved
as a 100% export oriented unit. The language of the said sub-clause is
capable of no other interpretation. (91-F-H; 92-A]

Shah Bhojrai Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v. Subbash
Chandra Yograj Sinha, [1962] 2 SCR 159, relied on. D

F.A.R. Bennion "Statutory Interpretation" Second Edition, pp 494 -495,
referred to.

2.1. The submission that clause 15(i) of the Order brings in E
geographical or topographical concept does not flow from the scheme of
the Order or the language of the clause. When Clause 15 (j) refers to "100%
export oriented unit" it is quite obvious that the clause has been inserted
in the Export (Control) Order, 1988 in view of the promulgation and
existence of the export promotion scheme. The scheme for export oriented
units was for grant of approval for the manufacture of products which, F
according to the conditions contained in the approval, had to be exported
from the country. It is the contention of the respondent that under the
terms of its licence it was under an obligation to export only Fnrfural and
not other product. It is on this basis that it has been contended in the
transferred case that the respondent is under no obligation to export G
edible rice bran oil. The obligation to export the entire quantity of Furfural ·
•. manufactured by it arises because of a specific condition to export 100%
production contained in the industrial licence. (92-B-D]

2.2. Clause 15(j) had to be inserted so as to save such conditions
which had been incorporated in the industrial licence which was issued to H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the respondent. Had clause IS(j) not been incorporated in the Order it
may have been possible for a unit to try and content that by virtue of the
restriction on exports being placed by Clause 3 of the Export (Control)
Order, the unit was not in a {Josition to export its products, though it was
obliged to do so when the licence was issued. The implication of the
insertion of the saving clause therefore, was that the existing right or
B commitment for the export or the products wa' not in any way curtailed
or taken away by the pronoulgation of the said Order. No extra right or
licence to export an item, which the unit could not previously export was
sought to be conferred by Clause lS(j). [92-E-G]

c 2.3. The use of the word "products" in plural, does not mean that very
product made or produced in the unit could be exported. The said word
"products" signifies that ther" may be more than one product which may
be required to be exported in terms of the industrial licence or registration
of the export oriented unit and clause (lS(j) would save the export of all
such items. (92-H; 93-A]
D
2.4. The appellant was entitled to allow exports against registration-
cum-allocati~n certificate and reading the same along with Clause 3 and
4 of the Export (Control) Order, conditions not inconsistent with the Act
or the Order, could be imr1osed while permitting export. One of the
E conditions imposed by the appellant for export of non-basmati rice was
that it could not be exported at less than the minimum price fixed by it
and it was clearly entitled to do so. There is thus no merit in the contention
that the appellant could not lix the minimum price at which non-basmati
rice could be exported. [93-G-H; 94-A-B; 93-B]
F
3. The High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution for more than one reason and therefore, it
would be incumbent upon this Court to interfere under Article 136 of the
Constitution and not to allow the respondent to take advantage of an
obviously wrong decision of the High Court. Firstly the High Court mis-
G construed Clause 15(j) of the Order and held that because the respondent
was an export oriented unit, it could export any item manufactured by it,
which conclusion is wholly incorrect. Secondly the High Conrt not to have
entertained the wTit petition because of the respondent's conduct. It bad
liled and earlier writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court
H dee.ling with the same issue, namely, its obligation and right to export its
AGRICULTURALANDPROCESSEDFOODPDTS. '· OSWALAGROFURANE 79

products under the licence and in terms or the Export (Control) Order. It A
is possible that the Delhi High Court may not be aware or the pendency or
the Writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, regarding the
export or edible rice bran oil, because there is no reference to the filing of
the said case in writ petition filed in the Delhi High Court. The respondent
is guilty or suppression or this very important fact. It was contended in the
B
Punjab and Haryana ·High Court that it was under no obligation to export
the edible rice bran oil and its only obligation was to export Furfural, while
in the writ petition filed in the Delhi High Court, a somewhat contrary
contention was raised, namely, that being an export oriented unit, it was
entitled to export non-basmati rice, in addition to Furrural. Had the
respondent indicated in the writ petition filed in the Delhi High Court that C
it had also filed a petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which
was still pending, relating to export of edible rice bran oil, then Delhi High
Court most probably would not have e~tertained the petition because the
proper course \\'hich should have been folhnved by Oswal Agro was to raise
this contention, regarding export of non-basmati rice, in the \\Tit petition D
filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court or to file a new petition there.
Under these circumstances the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136
of the Constitution is clearly called for, more so when it is admitted that
the respondent had exported non-basmati rice at a price far less than the
minimum price fixed by the appellant. Therefore the respondent could not,
in law,. export non-basmati rice. The Delhi High Court, instead of passing E
interim orders and allowing export of non-basmati rice, ought to have
dismissed the writ petition. [94-E-H; 95-A-E]

4. It is clear that Oswal Agro had exported non-basmati rice which,
in law, it \\'as not entitled to export lvithout getting the pernlission from F
the appellant and at a price less than what was fixed by it. The export was
possible only because or interim orders which were passed first by the
Delhi High Court and thereaner by this Court. This Court made it clear
that the export was being permitted subject to the condition that the
respondent would make good the difference in dollars if ultimately it was G
>. held they were not entitled to export the said rice. After the imposition of
such a ·condition, the respondent c::hose to make the export of rice. It
availed or the permission which was granted by the courts and as the
permission \\'as a conditional one, it is not open to it to contend that it is
·, not liable to make good the ditl'erence when it has been found that they
were not, in law, entitled to export rice without authorisation from the H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A appellant. Having taken advantage of the interim orders of the High Court
and of the order of this court, in particular, the respondent cannot now be
permitted to escape from the condition which was imposed upon it. Even
though, if a valid authoris.ation had been issued for the export of rice, the
appellant may have been entitled to receive only 5% commission but as the
respondent has made export of rice in violation of law and under the condi-
B tional orders passed by this Court, it cannot be now allowed to say that is not
liable to pay the difference between the price at which the rice was exported
and the minimum price fixed by the appellant. The liability to pay to appellant
arises by virtue of interim orders by the High Court and this Court, which
orders are binding on the parties. [96-A-B; E-H; 97-A]
c
5.1. It is clear that the respondent was willing to export edible rice bran
oil, if it was permitted to do so. In fact it had also indicated the amount of
foreign exchange which it would earn by the export of edible rice bran oil. It
is on the basis of this willingness that the industrial licence \V'J.s amended by
D incorporating clause (vi) which had the effect of making it a condition for the
respondent to export edible rice bran oil. [99-H; 100-A-B]

5.2. Under Rule 16(2) of the Rules the owner of an industrial under-
taking may ask for variation or amendment of the licence and under
E sub-rule (2) the Ministry of Industrial Development has the power to vary
or amend the licence and \\'hile doing so, amend or alter or add any one
or more conditions. In as much as the export promotion scheme had been
promulgated \\'ilh a view to encourage export oriented units so as to earn
more foreign exchange, it is not surprising that, viewed in that context, the
Government of India acce11ted the request for permission to export edible
F rice bran oil and a specific condition to that extent was incorporated in
the industrial licence by inserting clause (vi). It is interesting to note that
no protest against that amendn1ent appears to have been lodged by the
respondent. The reason obviously must have been that this an1endment
was sought for and the respondent had categorically stated that it was
G willing to export edible oil, if permitted. The respondent did not readily
protest and on the contrary, commenced the production of the rice bran
oil. It also accepted the other arnendments made in the licence, which had
been sought by it. Under these circumstances, and seeing the conduct of
the respondent, it is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the
H Constitution as it was obliged to export the rice bran oil. [100-C-F)
AGRICULTIJRALAND PROCESSED FOOD PDTS. v. OSWALAGRO FURANE 81

6. The High Court clearly overlooked the statutory provisions of A
Sections 3 and SA of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the respon-
dent got an unfair and undue advantage as a reason thereof. It is therefore,
not only liable to pay the amount of excise duty which was due and payable
but it also has to pay interest thereon. The respondent which was a commer-
cial Organisation had approached the High Court in exercise of its discre-
B
tionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India
purportedly to get justice. In actual fact it sought and obtain interim orders
which resulted in its not becoming liable to pay excise duty which, under no
circumstances, could have been a matter of dispute. A litigant who obtains
an incorrect order and does not pay. the statutory dues should not be
allowed to m_ake any profit or gain from the infraction of law. The money c
which was legitimately due to the Government has been utilised by the
respondent in its business. Dealing with such cases which have financial
implications involving business houses or companies it is the commercial
' principles which must be applied by the Court while ordering payment of
interest. Had the respondent instead of using the Government money, D
obtained the said amourit of loan from a bank, it would have had to pay
interest thereon at the bank rate then prevailing. A lending institution like
a bank would normally have advanced money for the purposes of business
at the bank rate which is fixed >1ith periodical rest. In addition thereto, a
bank would normally also obtain a collateral security so as to safeguard the
loan advanced by it. The respondent, on the other hand, had not paid the E
excise dues to the Government and the Government money has presumably
been used in its business. No collateral security has been furnished by them
because none was ordered by the Court. Under these circumstances, there
is no reason as to why the respondent would not be required to pay at least
that rate of interest, and on such terms, as it would have to pay to a bank if F
that amount of money had been obtained by it on loan. Keeping this prin-
ciple in mind, it would be just and proper that the respondent be directed to
pay, in addition to the excise duty payable, interest at the rate of 18o/(I per
annum. [103-B·H; 104-A-B]

> G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3785 of
1992 of Etc. Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.92 of the Delhi High Court
in W.P. No. 42 of 1992. H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A M. Chandrasekhar, Additional Solictor General, R.F. Nariman, Ram
· Jethmalani, Tarun Bajaj, Dhananjay K. Singh, Atul K. Bandhu, V. Shekhar,
Rajiv Dutta, Naresh Kr. Sharma, A. Subba Rao and Ms. Sushma Suri for
the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
KIRPAL, J. This judgment will dispose of appeals arising from the
judgment of the High Court of Delhi which had permitted Oswal Agro
Furane Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Oswal Agro') to export non-bas-
mati rice and T.C. (C) No. 15 of 1996 which was a writ petition filed by
c the Oswal Agro in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking permission
to sell in the domestic market the edible rice bran oil manufactured by it.

The Government of India Ministry of Commerce, on 31st December,
1980 issued a notification whereby a scheme was formulated to facilitate
setting up of 100% export oriented units. It was decided lo give such units
D certain concessions so as to enable thc1n to meet figures of foreign den1an<l
in terms of pricing, quality precision etc. Such an export oriented unit was
to belong to an industry in respect of which the export putentional and
export targets had been considered by the relevant Export Promotion
Council. The units which were intending to set up such industries were
required to apply for approval, to the Department of Industrial Develop-
E
ment, Ministry or Industry.

The Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation on 9th/22nd
July, 1982 made an application to the Ministry of Industry for the grant of
industrial licence to manufacture Furfural and other edible products in a
F 100% export oriented project. In the application it was slated that the
proposed project envisaged the putting up of a composite unit, inter alia,
consisting of two paddy shelling units, each having a shelling capacity of 30
tonnes per hour. The application also further stated that after shelling the
rice, the rice produced on custom basis \Vould be returned back to the
paddy suppliers; the residual rice husk would be subjected to Furfural
G extraction and edible oil would be extracted from the rice bran obtained
as a bye product. It was stated that the edible rice bran oil so produced
would be 100% import substitution because the country wa' importing
edible oil. On 19th May, 1986, industrial licence was granted lo M/S.
Punjab Agro Furane Ltd., Chandigarh , which was set up by the Punjab
H State industrial Corporation. The new industrial undertaking was to have
AGRICULTURALANDPROCESSEDFOOD PDTS. "· OSWALAGROFURANE(KIRPAL,J.l 83

an installed capacity of manufacturing 3000 tonnes of Furfural and 3000 A
tonnes of Edible Rice Bran Oil, as a bye product. This licence was issued
subject to various conditions one of which was that "the entire '100 per
cent' production shall be exported."

Oswal Agro entered into an agreement with the Punjab State In-
B
dustrial Corporation for establishing the unit for manufacturing Furfural
and as a result thereof the name of the Punjab Agro Furane Ltd. was
changed to Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. On 18th May, 1987, the Government
of India issued a letter by which the industrial licence dated 19th May,
1986, which had been issued for the manufacture of Furfural was .amended.
By this amendment a number of additional conditions were included in the c
industrial licence. One of the conditions which was incorporated was that
the rice shelling plant will not be a part of 100% export oriented project
but the Government may consider granting permission for the import of
this plant subject to levy of such duties as may be decided at that time.
This condition regarding the rice shelling plant was challenged by the D
company by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 3622 of 1987 in the Punjab and
Haryana High Court. By judgment dated 2nd June, 1989, the High Court
allowed the writ petition and held that the project was a comprehensive
one and permission for the import of rice shelling plant had by necessary
implication been granted by the Government of India and, therefore, the
plant could be imported without payment of customs duty. This d.ecision E
has become final as the same was not challenged by the Government of
India. As a consequence thereof the rice shelling plant was imported by
the respondents without payment of customs duty.

One more condition which was incorporated in the licence by the p
aforesaid letter of 18th May, 1987 was condition No. (vi) which stated that
"you shall also export rice bran oil produced in the 100% export oriented
unit. If, however, it is so required by the Government, you will agree to
supply the said oil to an agency that will be nominated by the Government
at prices not higher than the international prices." It was also by this
amendment letter dated 18th May, 1987, that it was recognised that the G
project would be implemented by M/s. Oswal Agro Furane Ltd.

The Government of India on 30th March, 1988, in exercise of its
powers under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947,
issued the Export (Control) Order, 1988. This order repealed the earlier H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP.2S.C.R.

A Export (Control) Order 1977 and it came into force with immediate effect.
Restriction on export of certain goods was imposed by clause 3 of the new
Order which inter alia, stated that "Save as otherwise provided in this
Order no person shall export any goods of the description specified in
Schedule I, except under and in accordance with a licence granted by the
Central Government or by an officer specified in Schedule ll." In this order
B a saving clause was inserted in Clause 15. In the present appeals we are
concerned with t~e construction of Clause 150) of the said order, which
reads as follows :

"15. Saving - Nothing in this Order shall apply to -
c (j) products manufactured in and exported from the respective
Free Trade Zones and approved 100 per cent Export Oriented
Units except textile items covered by bilateral arrangements;..

The aforesaid Export (Control) Order 1988 was amended by an
D order dated 14th October, 1991 so as to include in Part-C in Schedule I in
List II a number of items including non-basmati rice. As a result of this
amendment non-basmati rice ~vas allowed to be exported subject to the
following conditions "exports shall be allowed against registration-cum-al-
location certificate issued by the Agricultural and Processed Food Product
Export Development Authority (herein after referred to 'APEDA') - ap-
E
pellant herein". This amendment was followed by a Trade Notice dated
15th October, 1991, issued by the appellant by which procedure was laid
down for allotment of quota which envisaged that the minimum export
price of non-basmati rice, which was fixed, was GS $ 231 FOB per MT.
This was followed by a letter dated 15th October, 1991 from Government
F of India to APEDA, inter alia, stating that additional quota of non-basmati
rice for export subject to minimum export price of US $ 231 per MT had
been released and it was stated that the Highest unit value realisation, and
not cornering of quota by any party, should be the priority for allowance
of export.
G It is in the background of the aforesaid facts that we may now refer
to the filing of the writ petitions by the respondents with which we are now
concerned.

On 7th January, 1991, Writ Petition "lo. 561 of 1991, was filed
H by Oswal Agro in the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein they
AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD POTS. v. OSWALAGROFURANE(KIRPAL,J.l 85

'
challenged the validity of Clause No. (vi) in the aforesaid amendment letter A
., dated 18th May, 1987 and it was contended that they were under no
obligation to export the edible rice bran oil and that they should be
permitted to sell the same in the domestic tariff area. It is this writ petition
which, vide this Court's order dated 14th March, 1996, has been transferred
to this Court and is T.C. (Civil) No. 15 of 1996. On 12th January, 1992,
B
Oswal Agro filed another writ petition No. 42 of 1992 in the High Court
of Delhi claiming that it was not bound by the provisions of the Export
(Control) Order, 1988 and it should be allowed to export, \vi th out any
restriction, the non-basmati rice produced by it.

It will be appropriate, at this stage, to consider the points arising in c
these two cases, the Delhi case dealing with the case of export of rice and
the Punjab case relating to the export of edible rice bran oil, separately.

The case relating to expo1t of rice. The writ petition was filed in the
Delhi High Court because vide letter dated 7th January, 1992, the Assistant D
Collector of Customs, Kandla, did not allow the export of rice and in fact,
directed Oswal Agro to unload the rice which had been loaded. ll appears
that the action by the customs authorities had been taken when the appel-
]ants herein had informed the Assistant Collector of Customs, Kandla, that
export of non-basmati rice could be allowed only when registration-cum-
allocation certificates are issued. Inasmuch as Oswal Agro \Vanted to E
export the non-basmati rice \Vithout, any registration-cum-allocation cer-
tificate from the appellant and below the minimum price which had been
fixed, the aforesaid action was taken by the Customs Authorities of slop-
ping Oswal Agro from exporting rice. In the writ petition filed by the
respondents in the Delhi High Court it was contended that being a 100 per
cent export oriented unit, it was exempted from any trade restriction, inter F
alia, by \Ortue of the saving Clause J5U) of the Export (Control) Order

- 1988. Another contention which was raised was that the fixation of mini-
mum price by the appellant herein was without any power and authority.
Further contending that Oswal Agro had entered into a number of con-
tracts for the export of rice, it was submitted that the appellants herein
G
• were estopped from stopping the said export. According to Oswal Agro it
had entered into contracts dated 16th October, 1991, 18th October, 1991
and 21st October, 1991, whereby it was under a contractual obligation to
supply l,07,000 M.T. of non-basmati rice to M/s Continental Grain Com-
paoy, New York. It is an admitted case that the price at which Oswal Agro
wanted to export the non-ba.sn1ati rice, without any registration or H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A authorisation from the appellant was US $ 213 per M.T., i.e., below the
minimum price fJXed by the appellant herein.

On 15th January, 1992, the Delhi High Court issued rule nisi and, by
an interim order of the same day, stayed the operation of the aforesaid •
order dated 7th January, 1992, of the Assistant Collector of Customs,
B Kandla and directed that there shall be no interference in the loading/ship-
ment of non-basmati rice by Oswal Agro to the extent of 13200 M.T. It was
further directed that this was subject to the condition that Oswal Agro will
furnish a security of the amount of difference between the minimum price
fJXed by the appellants herein and the price at which the said quantity of
rice was being exported by Oswal Agro and the security was to be furnished
c within three weeks after competition of the shipment/export of the said
quantity of rice.

By judgment dated 31st March, 1992 a Division Bench of the Delhi
High Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition. It accepted the contention
D on behalf of Oswal Agro that the provisions of the Export (Control) Order,
1988, were not applicable to the respondents by merely observing as
follows:

"The contentions of Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel for the
petitioner appears to have force. As stated hereinabove, in terms
E of clause 15G) of the Export (Control) Order 1988, nothing in this
order shall apply to the 100 per cent export oriented Unit. In view
of the aforesaid clause the notification dated 14th October, 1991,
by which the said order has been amended, will not apply to the
petitioner's unit which is admittedly a 100 per cent export oriented
F unit. Since the Trade Notice dated 15th October, 1991, has been
issued pursuant to the notification dated 14th October, 1991, the
same will also not apply lo the exports being made by 100 per cent
export oriented Units."

The High Court also held that there was no prov1s10n m the Export
G (Control) Order 1988 for fixing the minimum price for non-basmati rice.
By taking note of the fact that vide letter dated 15th October, 1991, of the
appellants herein, the last date for exporting the entire quantity of non-bas-
mati rice was 31st March, 1992, the High Court while allowing the writ
petition granted three months' time to export the balance quantity of 83800
H M.T. of non-basmati rice.
AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PDTS. '· OSWALAGRO FURANE[KIRPAL.J.J 87

On 15th May, 1992, in Special Leave Petition (c) No. 6854 of 1992, A
filed by the appellant, from which Civil Appeal No. 3785 of 1992 arises,
this Court while directing the petition to be listed on 8th September, 1992
gave Oswal Agro the liberty to export the rice in question on the under-
taking that in the event of the Court holding that the item was a canalised
item and Oswal Agro was not entitled to export the same, then it would
B
make good the difference, as determined, in dollars.

Notwithstanding the fact that the aforesaid special leave petition was
pending in this Court. Oswal Agro moved another miscellaneous applica-
tion before the Delhi High Court in which it was stated that by the end of
June, 1992, 66,099.680 M.T. of non-basmati rice would be exported and C
that for exporting the remaining quantity in question time may be extended
upto 31st August, 1992, and it be also permitted to export the same to
buyers other than with whom the earlier contracts were alleged to have
been entered. On 9th July, 1992, the High Court allowed this application
and extended the time till 8th September, 1992, to export the balance D
quantity of rice but with the observation that the same was "subject to the
conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in their order dated 15th May,
1992." Thereupon this Court on 8th September, 1992, granted leave to
appeal and stayed the operation of the High Court judgment.

On behalf of the appellant it is contended by Mr. R.F. Nariman, E
learned senior counsel, that the industrial licence which had been granted
was only for the manufacture of two items, namely, Furfural and edible rice
bran oil and this was subject to the condition that the entire 100% product
of these items was to be exported. He further submitted that according to
clause 15(j) of the Export (Control) Order, 1988, only the export of F
Furfural and its bye product edible bran rice oil was saved from the
operation of the Export (Control) Order, 1988 and not the export of non-
basmati rice. Elaborating this submission he contended that the construc-
tion placed by the High Court on Clause 15(j) would mean that so long as
there was a 100% approved export oriented unit then it could export any G
goods irrespective of what was approved to be manufactured for export by
• that unit. It was also contended that filing of the writ petition in the Delhi
High Court was a clear abuse of the process of the court inasmuch as the
petition had been filed without making any reference to the earlier Writ
Petition No. 561 of 1991 which was filed in the Punjab and Haryana High
Court and that the statements made in both the writ petitions were contrary H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A to each other. It was abo contended that the High Court in its discretion
ought not to have granted any relief to Oswal Agro on the principle
analogous to Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Lastly, it was
submitted that Oswal Agro had exported 86,500 MT of non-basmati rice
in violation of the Export (Control) Order and by virtue of the undertaking
given by it to this Court, it is liable to pay the difference between the actual
B export price and the minimum export price fixed by the Government and
so calculated this difference which comes to t.:S $ 24,54,644 at the current
foreign exchange rates.

Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for Oswal Agro at the
C outset conceded that in terms of the industrial licence Oswal Agro was
under no obligation to export basmati rice. According to him the only
obligation which it had, in terms of the licence, was to export Furfural and
not edible rice bran oil. For justifying the export of non-basmati rice. Mr.
Jethmalani relied upon clause 15(j) and submitted that the said clause was
D not confined to the end product governed by the !DR Act but it extended
to bye products manufactured in that factory. In other words his submission
was that an export oriented unit, by virtue of Clause 15(j) was entitled to
export not merely the goods mentioned in the industrial Unit but also other
products manufactured in that factory. He submitted that with respect to
E the licensed product the Oswal Agro was under an obligation to export but
because of Clause 15(j) the Oswal Agro, on its own volition, the export
oriented unit could export other item which are also manufactured in that
factory. It was contended that what was sanctioned in the case of the
respondent was a project which started from the stage of dehusking of
paddy and, therefore, whatever was covered by the scheme would be
F covered by Clause 15(j). While referring to Clausc15(j), it was contended
that it was not intended for exemption for those items which a unit was
obliged export and, therefore, a different meaning or purpose should be
assigned to Clause 15(j). By giving the construction to the said clause, as
canvassed by the appellant, Mr. Jethmalani contended that it would result in
G changing the language of the said clause. Clause 15G), it was also submitted,
brought in the geographical or topographical concept thereby meaning that
whatever was manufactured in the export oriented unit was free from the
shackles of the Export (Control) Order, 1988. In the end it was contended
that by using the plural word 'products' in Clause 15G}, the implication was
H that it was to apply to all the products manufactured in that unit.
AGRICULTIJRALAND PROCESSED FOOD POTS. v. OSWALAGRO FURANE[KJRPAL,J.] 89

Before considering the rival contentions, it will be important to see A
the scheme was proposed for approval by the respondent. The following
table set out in the Writ Petition No. 3622 of 1987 filed by the respondent
in the Punjab and Haryana High Court is relevant :

Paddy
B
I
Rice Mill

White Rice Rice Flour Rice Husk· Rice Bran
I I c
Furfural Rice Bran Oil
Extraction extraction
I

~
Exhausted Edible Rice
Rice husk Bran Oil
I D
Boiler Steam & Furfural
I
Steam
Powder·

I
Turbe Generator
I
Surplus powder
E
of State Grid.

A bare perusal of the aforesaid table shows that the raw material
which was required for the manufacture of Furfural is rice husk while for
the manufacture of rice bran oil the raw material required is rice bran. In F
the application dated 9th/22nd Jnly, 1982 for the grant of industrial licence,
it was clearly stated that though the respondent proposed to set up two
shelling units but after shelling the rice produced on custom basis would
be returned back to the paddy suppliers. It is only in order to obtain
.. sufficient quantity of raw material, namely, rice husk that a composite
project was proposed which contemplated the setting up of a rice mill as G
well. Under the circumstances it will not be correct to state that the
immediate raw material required for the manufacture of Furfural was
paddy. In fact the raw material was rice husk, though, no doubt the same
is obtained after shelling of paddy. Therefore, the process of shelling of
paddy by the respondent, which results in the production of non-basmati H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A rice as well as rice husk, is not an essential requirement for the manufac-
ture of Furfural.

Clause 15 is a saving provision and not an exemption clause. A saving
provision or clause merely preserves what exists. In Statutory Interpretation
by F.A.R. Bennion, Second Edition, at page 494 and 495 the learned author
B with regard to the saving clause has said that "A saving is a provision the
intention of which is to narrow the effect of the enactment to which it refers
so as to preserve some existing legal rule or right form its operation. A
saving resembles a proviso, except that it has no particular form. Further-
more it relates to an existing rule or right, whereas a proviso is usually
C concerned with limiting the new provisions made by the section to which
is attached." Again at page 494 and 495 it is stated "A saving is taken not
to be intended to confer any right which did not exist already." To the same
effect is a decision of this Court in Shah Bhojraj Kuvelji Oil Mills and
Ginning Factory v. Subbash Chandra Yograj Sinha, [1962] 2 SCR 159. While
D dealing with the effect of a proviso it was observed as follows :

"The law with regard to provisos is well-settled and well-under-
stood. As a general rule, a proviso is added to an enactment to
qualify or create an exception to what is in the enactment, and
ordinarily, a proviso is not interpreted as stating a general rule.
E But provisos are often added not as exceptions or qualifications
to the main enactment but as savings clauses, in which cases they
will not be construed as controlled by the section. The proviso
which has been added to s. 50 of the Act deals with the effect of
repeal."
F
Dealing with the proviso to Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act,
the Court observed as under :

"The substantive part of the section repealed two Acts which
were in force the State of Bombay. If nothing more had been said,
G s. 7 of the Bombay General Clause Act would have applied, and
all pending suits and proceedings would have continued under the
old law, as if the repealing Act had not been passed. The effect of
the proviso was to take the matter out of s. 7 of the Bombay
General Clauses Act and to provide for a special saving. It cannot
H be used to decide whether s. 12 of the Act is retrospective".
AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PDTS. v. OSWALAGROFURANE[KIRPAL,J.I 91

Clauses 3 and 15 of the Export (Control) Order have to be read A
together. Clause 3 places restrictions and makes provision with regard to
export of goods specified in Schedule 1 and Schedule III of the Order. If,
however, a case falls within any of the various provisions of sub-clauses of
Clause 15, then in that case only the Order does not apply. Clause 15, to
put it differently, merely preserves any right or obligation which existed
B
prior to the issuance of the Export (Control) Order and it did not, and
could not, confer any new or additional right. Clause 15G) merely preserves
the right of Oswal Agro to export those products which it could export as
on 30th March,1988, and any amendment in the schedule to the said Order,
like the one inade on 14th October, 1991, would not and cannot give Oswal
Agro a right to export non-basmati rice, which right it did not have on 30th c
March, 1988. On 30th March, 1988, when the Export Trade (Control)
Order 1988 was promulgated, Oswal Agro had an industrial licence which
made it obligatory to export its entire production of Furfural. It was this
right to export furfural which was preserved by Clause l5G) and Oswal
Agro could make its exports without following the provisions of the said D
Order.

It is true that a unit which sets up a rice mill for the purpose of
producing non basmati rice is not required to obtain a licence under the
l.D.R. Act but under the scheme of 31st December 1980 even those units
or industries which were not covered by the !.D.R. Act could be registered E
by making an application under Clause 6 of the said scheme. If there was
such a unit producing non-basmati rice, then the export by such a unit
would be saved by virtue of Clause 15G).

Keeping in view the nature of a saving provision it is not possible to F
accept the contention of Mr. Jethmalani that on the plain reading of the
said sub-clause every product manufactured in a 100% export oriented unit
was exempt from the applicability of the provisions of the said Order.
Clause 15 clearly .·provides that-\vhat is saved are the products for which
the export oriented unit is approved and not any other product manufac-
tured by it. The word 'approved' in sµb-clause G) of Clause 15 must be G
read both with the words 'products' as well as with words the 'export
oriented unit'. A unit is granted approval, as an export oriented unit in
r~spect of specific product to be manufactured by it. The names of those
products are indicated in the licence granting approval and the saving
Clause 15G) is applicable to those products the manufacture and export of H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A which has been approved as a 100% export oriented unit. The language of
the said sub-clause is, in our opinion, capable of no other interpretation.

The submission that sub-clause GJ of Clause 15 of the said Order
brings in geographical or topographical concept does not flow from the
scheme of the Order or the language of the clause. When the Clause 15ij)
B refers to "100% export oriented unit" it is quite obvious that the clause has
been inserted in the Export Trade (Control) Order, 1988 in view of the
promulgation and existence of the promotion scheme of 1980. The said
scheme for export oriented units was for grant of approval for the manufac-
ture of products which, according to the conditions contained in the
c approval, had to be exported from the country. It is the contention of the
respondent herein that under the terms of its licence it was under an
obligation to export only Furfural and no other product. It is on this basis
that it has been contended in the transferred case that the respondent is
under no obligation to export edible rice bran oil. The obligation to export the
entire quantity of furfural manufactured by it arises because of a specific
D condition contained in the industrial licence which were is follows :

"(i) the entire (100 per cent) production shall be exported.

(ii) You shall export the entire production (100%) less rejects not
exceeding 5 (five) per cent for a period of 10 (ten) years."
E
Clause 15G) had to be inserted so as to save such conditions which had
been incorporated in the industrial licence which was issued to the respon-
dent. Had Clause 15G) not been incorporated in the Order it may have
been possible for a unit to try and contend that by virtue of the restriction
F on exports being placed by Clause 3 of the Export (Control) Order, the
unit was not in a position to export its products, though it was obliged to
do so when the licence was issued. The implication of the insertion of the
saving clause, therefore, was that the existing right or commitment for the
export of the products was not in any way curtailed or taken away by the
G promulgation of the said Order. No extra right or licence to export an item,
which the unit could not previously export, was sought to be conferred by
Clause 15G).

The use of the word "products" in plural, does not mean that every
product made or produced in the unit could be exported. The said word
H "products" signifies that there may be more than one produce which may
AGRICULTIJRALAND PROCESSED FOOD PDTS. v. OSWALAGROFURANE[KIRPAL,J.j 93

be required to be exported in terms of the industrial licence or registration A
of the ex1,olt oriented unit and Clause 15G) would save the export of all
such items.

There is also no merit in the contention that the appellant could not
fix the minimum price at which the non-basmati rice could be exported.
According to Clause 3 of the Order no person can export any good of the B
description specified in Schedule I except and in accordance with the
licence granted by the Central Government or an officer specified in the
Second Schedule. Clause 4 of the said Order provides that a licence which
is granted under the Order may contain such conditions which are not
inconsistent with the Act or the Order, as the licensing authority may deem C
fit to impose. On 14th October, 1991, the Export Trade (Control) Order
was amended and in Schedule I in List II Part C of the said Order Entry
No. 65 was inserted which reads as follows :

"65. Grains and flour, namely :
D
(i) Non-basmati rice Exports shall
(ii) Wheat be allowed
(iii) Wheat products viz. against registration-
raws, resultant alta,
cum-allocation E
wheat bran.
certificate
(iv) Maida, suji and whole
meal atta (wheat flour issued by the
of not less than 95% Agricultural
extraction)
Processed Food F
(v) Barley
Products Export
(vi) Maize
Development
(vii) Bazra
Authority
(viii) Jo war
(APEDA)" G
(ix) Ragi

The aforesaid entry made the appellant as the authority which was entitled
to allow exports against registration-cum-allocation certificate and reading
the same along with Clauses 3 and 4 of the Export Trade (Control) Order,
conditions not inconsistent with the Act of the Order, could be imposed H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2S.C.R.

A while permitting export. One of the conditions imposed by the appellant
for export of non-basmati rice was that it could not be exported at Jes; than
the minimum price fixed by it and, in our opinion, it was clearly entitled
to do so.

The reliance by the High Court on the earlier decision of the Punjab
B and Haryana High Court, while allowing import of capital goods, is clearly
misplaced. That writ petition was concerned only with the question of
import of machinery for the purpose of shelling paddy which would enable
Oswal Agro to obtain the raw material required by it, namely, rice husk.
That petition was not concerned with the question of export of rice and,
c therefore, the said decision had no application to the present case. The
question whether the rice shelling plant was a part of a 100% export
oriented unit is wholly immaterial while considering in the present case
whether Oswal Agro could export non-basmati rice.

It was also contended by Mr. Jethamalani that even if it be asoumed
D
that the High Court has taken an erroneous view and had wrongly con-
cluded that Oswal Agro could export non-basmati rice, this Court, in
exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitu-
tion, should not interfere.

E The facts as stated hereinabove, on the other hand, show that the
High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution, for more than one reason, and, therefore, it would be
incumbent upon this Court to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitu-
tion and not to allow Oswal Agro to take advantage of an obviously wrong
F decision of the High Court. Firstly the High Court misconstrued Clause
15G) of the Order and held that because Oswal Agro was an export
oriented unit, therefore, it could export any item manufactured by it, which
conclusion is wholly incorrect. Secondly the High Court ought not to have
entertained the writ petition because of Oswal Agro's conduct. It had filed
an earlier writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court dealing with
G the same issue, namely, its obligation and right to export its products under
the licence and in term of the Export (Control) Order. It is possible that
the Delhi High Court may not be aware of the pendency of the writ petition
in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, regarding the export of edible
rice bran oil, because there is no reference to the filing of the said case
H in the writ petition filed in the Delhi High Court. Oswal Agro is guilty
AGRJCULTIJRAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PDTS. '·OS WAL AGRO FURANE [KIRPAL, J.[ 95

of suppression of this very important fact. It was contended in the Punjab A
and Haryana High Court that it was under no obligation to export the
edible rice bran oil and its only obligation was to export Furfural while, in
the writ petition filed in the Delhi High Court, a somewhat contrary
' contention was raised, namely, that being an export oriented unit, it was
entitled to export non-basmati rice, in addition to Furfural. Had Oswal B
Agro indicated in the writ petition filed in the Delhi High Couri that it had .
also filed a petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was still
pending, relating lo export of edible rice bran oil, then Delhi High Court
most probably would not have entertained the petition because the proper
course which should have been followed by Oswal Agro was to raise this
contention, regarding export of non-basmati rice, in the writ petition filed C
in the Punjab and Haryana High Court or to ftle a new petition there.

Under these circumstances, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution is clearly called for, more so when it is admitted
that the respondent had exported over 87,000 M.T. of non-basmati rice at
a price far less than the minimum price fixed by the appellant. D
For the aforesaid reasons we conclude that Oswa[ Agro could not,
in law, export non-basmati rice. The Delhi High Court, instead of passing
interim orders and allowing export of non-basmati rice, ought to. have
dismissed the writ petition. E
It was contended by the learned counsel that even if it be assumed
that the export of non-basmali rice below the minimum price fixed by the
appellant was not permissible even then the only loss which has been
suffered by the appellant was the 5% on the difference in the price at which
the rice was exported and the minimum price which was fixed. Elaborating F
the contention it was submitted that the sale proceed of the rice which was
exported would always belong to the respondent and the appellant was only
entitled to received 5% of the proceed. Therefore if there was an export
at less than the minimum price fixed then the shortfall of the amount which
is received would be to the account of Oswal Agro. The loss to the G
appellant herein, it was submitted, would only be to the extent of 5% of
the sale price which should have been realised and the difference between
the actual sale price and the minimum price fixed was not payable by Oswal
Agro to the appellant.

We are unable lo agree with the aforesaid submission. It is clear that H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Oswal Agro had exported non-basmati rice which in law, it was not entitled
to export without getting the permission from the appellcnt and al a price
less then what was fixed by it. The export was possible only because of the
interim orders which were passed first by the Delhi High Court and
thereafter by this Court. To recapitulate, the first interim order was passed
on 15.1.1992 by the Delhi High Court permitting the export of the said rice
B
on the condition that Oswal Agro would furnish a security of the amount
of difference between the minimum price fixed by the appellant herein and
the price at which the said quantity of rice was exported by Oswal Agro.
Thereaiier, this Court on 15.5.1992, when Oswal Agro wanted to export
more non-basmati rice, passed order to the effect that "in the meantime
c the respondent will be at liberty to export the rice in question on the
undertaking that in the event of the Court holding that the item was a
canalised iten1 and the respondents \Vere not entitled to export the same,
the respondent will make good the difference, as detern1ine<l, in dollars 11 •
The third interim order was passed hy the High Court of Delhi on 9.7.1992
when it permitted the export of balance quantity of rice but observed that
D
this was "subject to the conditions laid do\vn in this Court's aforesaid order
of 15.5.1992".

First the Delhi High Court on 15.1.1992 and thereafter this Court in
its order dated 15.5.1992 made it clear that the export was being permitted
E subject to the condition that Oswal Agro would make good the difference
in dollars if ultimately it was held that they were not entitled to export the
said rice. After the imposition of such an condition, Oswal Agro chose to
make the export of rice. It availed of the permission which was granted by
the courts and as the pern1ission was a conditional one, it is now open to
them to contend that it is not liable to make good the difference when it
F has been found that they \Vere not, in law, entitled to export rice \Vithout
authorisation from the appellant herein. Having taken advantage of the
interim orders of the Delhi High Court and of the order dated 15.5.1992
of this Court, in particular, ()swal Agro cannot now be permitted to escape
from the condition which was imposed upon it. Even though, if a valid
authorisation had been issued for the export of rice, the appellant may have
G been entitled to receive only 5% commission but as Os\val Agro has made
export uf rice in violation of La\v and under the conditional orders passed
by this Court, it cannot be now allowed to say that it is not liahle to pay
the differcnce between the price at which the rice was exported and the
minimum price fixed by the appellant. The liability to pay lo the appellant,
H
AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PDTS. '· OSWALAGRO FURANE IKIRPAL, I.I 97

in other words, arises by virtue of interim orders passed by the High Court A
Court and this Court, which orders are binding on the parties

Edible Oil

As regards the challenge to the amendment of the industrial licence
vide letter dated 18th May, 1987, Clause (vi) was included as an additional B
condition in the industrial licence, which reads as follows :

"You shall also eXport rice bran oil produced in the 100% export
oriented unit. If, however, it is so required by the Government, you
will agree to supply the said oil to an agency that will be nominated
by the Government at prices not higher than the international C
priccs.n

This amendment was made nearly one year after the grant of the
industrial licence and more than four and a half year after the issuance of
a letter of intent. The very insertion of this clause shows that, prior thereto,
Oswal Agro was probably under no obligation to export edible rice bran D
oil. In the industrial licence originally issued it is not mentioned that edible
rice bran oil had to be exported. On 13th June, 1986, an agreement was
entered into between Oswal Agro and the Government in which it \Vas
specifically stated that "the unit shall earn foreign exchange by eXporting
100% of their products of furfural for a period of ten years, counting from E
the prescribed dates after allowing rejects upto 5 per cent of production
11
as aforesaid. This agreen1ent makes specific no mention of Os\val Agro
being under an obligation to export edible rice bran oil.

The question which arises is whether the industrial licence could be
amended so as to incorporate a specific condition requiring the export of F
edible rice bran oil.

The Government had framed "The Registration and Licensing of
Industrial Undertaking Rules, 1952" under which applications had to be
filed for grant of an industrial licence under the Industries (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1951. Admittedly these rules are applicable and the G
industrial licence dated 19th May, 1986 specifically states that the same was
being issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers con-
ferred on it by Rulel5(2) of the said Rules.

Rule 16 of the said Rules makes a provision for variation or amend-
ment of licence. The said Rule reads as follows : H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A "16 . .Vadation or Amendment of Licences - (1) Any owner of an
industrial undertaking in respect of which a licence has been
granted, who desires any variation or amendment in his licence
shall apply to the Ministry of (Industrial Development) giving the
reasons for the variation or amendment.

B (2) The Ministry of (Industrial Development) after carrying out
such investigation as it may consider necessary, may vary or amend
the licence. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry may also
consult the Licensing Committee before coming to a decision."

c August,Before the issuance of the licence on 19th May, 1986, a letter of 20th
1982 was written by the Director, Punjab State Industrial Develop-
ment Corporation to the Secretariat for industrial approval, Government
of India, Ministry of Industries, in which it was stated as follows :

"We are prepared to undertake to export 100% production of the
D edible rice bran oil and de-oiled cake. Also we are ready to export
polished rice produced from our project if allowed by the Govern-
ment of India. Pursuant to the aforesaid undertaking it was in the
letter of intent dated 20th October, 1982, issued by the Government
of India, the two items \vhose manufacture wa~ permitted was
Furfural with an annual capacity of 6000 tonnes and edible rice
E
bran oil "as a bye product" with an annual capacity of 3000 tonnes.
It was further stated in the letter of intent that "the entire 100%
production shall be exported".

Though in the industrial licence dated 18.8.1986 on the formal agree-
F ment executed thereafter, there was no mention with regard to the expan-
sion of edible rice bran oil, the Secretary, Government of Punjab,
Department of Industries wrote a letter dated 30. 7.1986 (photocopy of
which has been placed on record in this Court by the appellant) in which
reference was made to the approval of the change in the name of the
company from Punjab Agro Furane Limited to Oswal Agro Furane
G Limitcd cancellation of an agreement with a foreign company; change of
1

financing pattern for the project as approved by the term lending institu-
tion.'; and revalidation of capital goods import beyond two years as the
letter uf intent was issued 011 25.10.1982. This letter also replied to some
querries which appeared to have been raised by the officers of the Ministry
H of Industries and in response to one of the querries, it was, inter alia, stated
AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PDTS. '· OSWALAGRO FURANE[KIRPAI., J.[ 99

as follows : A
"The rice bran, so obtained, would be processed for production of
edible grade rice bran oil and deoiled cake. The Company would
export deoiled cake. It has given an undertaking to export edible
rice bran oil also, as and when permitted by Government of India.
Presently, large quantities of edible oil are being imported and B
export of edible oil is not permitted. Till export of edible rice bran
oil is permitted, this oil can be sold to the domestic market directly
or through a State designated agency and has to be treated as a
deemed export."

It was also mentioned in this letter that they were prepared to export rice
c
'if so permitted by Government of India'. This letter also contained the
amount of foreign exchange which could be earned by exporting furfural,
rice bran cake, edible grade rice bran oil 11 if permitted" and non-levy rice
"if permitted". The statement to this effect, in the said letter, was as follows:
D
"It may be mentioned that the project does not envisage any
recurring import of raw matcriaJ. The only concession, which it
would enjoy under 100% EOU, is one time duty-free import of
equipment, presently not being manufactured in India for the
requisite capacity and specifications. It will earn an annual foreign
E
exchange of Rs. 5.80 crores per year (Annex. I) if it is permitted
to export only furfural and rice bran cake. It will earn foreign
exchange of Rs. 10.70 crores per annum (Annex. II) if it is per-
mitted to export edible rice bran oil in addition to furfural and
rice bran cake. It will be able to earn a foreign exchange of Rs.
16.10 crores per annum (Annex. III) if it is permitted to export F
non-levy rice, edible grade rice bran oil, rice bran cake and
furfural. The company is in a position to export even rice husk ash
from the boilers, at the rate of 70 tonnes per day and earn foreign
exchange equal to Rs. 1.50 crores per year (Annex. IV)."
G
After the receipt of the aforesaid letter the impugned letter was issued
amending the licence of Oswal Agro whereby the aforesaid condition No.
(vi) relating to export of edible rice bran oil was also incorporated.

It is clear from the aforesaid letter written and the undertaking given,
that Oswal Agro was willing to export edible rice bran oil, if it was H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A permitted to do so. In fact it had also indicated the amount of foreign
exchange which it would earn by the export of edible rice bran oil. It is on
the receipt of the aforesaid letters, specifically letter dated 30th July, 1986,
which was followed by a reminder dated 6th November, 1986, that the
impugned letter was issued on 18th May, 1987, amending the industrial
licence. The amendment now made, where by clause (vi) was incorporated
B in the industrial licence, had the effect of making it a condition for o.swal
Agro to export edible rice bran oil.

Under Rule 16(2) of the aforesaid Rules the owner of an industrial
undertaking may ask for variation or amendment of the licence and under
c sub-rule (2) the Ministry of Industrial Development has the power to vary
or amend the licence and, \vhilc doing so, amend or alter or add any one
or more conditions. Inasmuch as the export promotion scheme of 1980 had
been promulgated with a view to encourage export oriented units so as to
earn more foreign exchange, it is not surprising that, viewed in that context,
the Gover.nn1ent of India accepted the request for permission to export
D edible rice bran oil and a specific condition to that extent was incorporated
in the industrial licence by the amendment letter dated 18th May, 1987. It
is intersting to note that though the amendment in the industrial licence
was made on 18th May, 1987, no protest against the said amendment
appears to have lodged by Oswal Agro. The reason obviously must have
E that this amendment was sought for, and in fact as far back as 1982 an
undertaking to export edible rice bran oil had been given and even in the
letter dated 30th July, 1986, the respondent had categorically stated that it
was willing to export edible oil, if permitted. Oswal Agro did not readily
protest and, on the contrary, com1nenced the production of t.he rice bran
oil. It also accepted the other amendments made in the license, which had
F
been sought by it. Under these circumstances, and seeing the conduct of
Oswal Agro, it is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution as it was obliged to export the rice bran oil.

In the writ petition which was filed in the High Court at Punjab and
G Haryana, and which has been transferred to this Court, Oswal Agro have
not made any mention with regard to the aforesaid letters dated 20th
August, 1982, containing the undertaking to export edible rice bran oil and
letter dated 30 July 1986, in which again it is stated that the rice bran would
be exported, if the Government grants permission. These are matcria]
H document and they would explain the reason as to why the Government
AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PDTS. >.OS WAL AG RO FU RANE [KIRPALJ.I 101

vide its Jetter dated 18th May, 1987, amended the industrial licence and A
incorporated therein the condition that the respondent would cxpon the
entire quantity of edible rice bran oil produced by it.

It will also be seen in the said letters of 20th August, 1982 as well as
of 30 July, 1986, not only was a mention made with regard to the export of
edible rice bran oil but an undertaking \Vas given that if it \Vas allo\ved, it
B
would also export polished rice produced at its unit. While providing for
the ~xport of edible rice bran oil, when an amendment to that effect in the
industrial licence was carried out \ide letter dated 18th May, 1987, no
an1endn1cnt \Vas made in the industrial licence for granting permission for
export of rice, even though such pern1ission was sought for. It can, there- c
fore, be concluded that whereas the Government had agreed to allow
Oswal Agro to export edible rice bran oil produced by it, and had made it
a condition of the industrial licence, no such pcrn1issiori was granted in
respect of export of rice. This \voul<l be an additional reason for dismissing
Oswal Agra's writ petition filed in the Delhi High Court and for allowing D
the appellant's appeal.

Jn the Writ Petition filed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court what
\Vas impugned was the decision of the Customs and Excise Authorities of
Chandigarh in not allowing the respondents to clear the rice bran oil for
sale in domestic tariff area. The prayer in the Writ Petition, inter alia, \Vas E
that Oswal Agro should be allowed to clear the rice bran oil manufactured
by it for sale in the domestic tariff area as it was not obligatory on its part
to export the rice bran oil produced by it. The High Court vide order dated
14.1.1991, inter alia, stayed the operation of the aforesaid clause (vi) of the
letter dated 18.5.1987 requiring the export of rice bran oil subject to the F
undertaking that if the Writ Petition was dismissed, then Oswal Agro would
be liable to pay an amount equal to the custom duty leviable as if the
edible bran oil was deemed to have been imported. This was followed by
another interim order dated 4.2.1991, after notice to the opposite party,
whereby Oswal Agro was granted permission to sell the rice bran oil in the G
domestic tariff area. The oil which had been produced so far had been
stored in the custom bonded area and by the this order of 4.2.1991, it was
further directed that the said oil would be released under the supervision
of the concerned Revenue Officer. The interest of the revenue was sought
to be safeguarded by the Court directing that an undertaking should be
filed by Oswal Agro that in the eventuality of the dismissal of the Writ H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Petition, they will pay lhe customs duty along wilh interest treating the oil
to have been imported.

Apart from the fact that by virtue of the interim order ot lhe High
Court Oswal Agro has to pay duty, inasmuch as it has now been held by
us that the respondent was not entitled to sell the rice bran edible oil in
B the domestic market and he was under an obligation to export the same,
Oswal Agro was infact not entitled to the type of interim relief which was
granted by the High Court. As will be presently seen it's conduct has been
such that it succedcd in obtaining an interim order contrary to the statutory
provisions which were applicable.
c According to Section 3 of the Central Excise and Sale Act, 1944
(hereinafter referred lo as 'lhe Act'), duty of excise was payable on any
excisable goods which arc produced or manufactured inter alia by a J.00%
ex11ort oriented undertaking and allowed to be sold in lndia. The proviso
to sub-section 1 of Section SA of the Act further slates thal general
D exemption which is granted under Section 5A(J) will apply to excisable
goods which were produced or manufactured by a 100% exporl oriented
undertaking and allowed to be sold in India. Sub-section 2 of the said
Section does give the GovcrnnH~nt power to exen1pt from payment of excise
duty any excisable goods by passing a special order to that effect. But, in
E the present case, no such exemption duty in fact was applicable. It appears
that a Notification granting exemption from payment of excise duty of
goods manufactured in a 100% export oriented undertaking vide notifica-
tion dated 9.12.1988 was issued under Section 5A(l) of the Act but by a
subsequent Notification dated 20.3.1990, the earlier Notification of
9.12.1988 was rescinded. The clear effect of this was that with effect from
F 20.3.1990 there was no exemption from payment of excise duty on the
goods manufactured by 100% export oriented units which goods were
cleared for sale in domestic market.

In a present case the oil which had been produced was stored in a
G bonded warehouse and it is only after the interim orders of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court dated 4.1.1991 and 4.2.1991 that lhe oil was cleared from
a bonded warehouse. As on that day, by virtue of the aforesaid Notification
dated 203.1990 there was no exemption from payment of excise duty on edible
rice bran oil and full amount of duty was payable on clearance of the goods.

H Neither in the Writ Petition nor in the application for stay, was there
AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD POTS. >. OSWAL AGRO FU RANE [KJRPAJ, J.1103

any prayer with regard to non-payment of excise duty by Oswal Agro. Even A
if the ·impugned clause (vi) in the amended licence, which made it
obligatory for Oswal Agro to export its entire quantity of edible rice bran
oil, had been quashed even then for the purposes of removing the oil from
the bonded warehouse for sale in the domestic market, excise duty in any
case was payable. Under no circumstances, was Oswal Agro entitled to any B
order, interim or final, which could have allowed it to clear the goods
without payment of excise duty. The High Court clearly overlooked the
statutory provisions of Section 3 and SA of the Act and Oswal Agro got
an unfair and undue advantage as a reason thereof. It is, therefore, not only
liable to pay the amount of excise duty which was due and payable but it
also has to pay interest thereon. C

What is the rate of interest which should be paid on the amount of
excise duty payable is the next question. In a case like the present, Oswal
Agro has clearly gained a undue advantage by obtaining an order which it
was not entitled to get in accordance with law. Oswal Agro which is a D
commercial organisation had approached the High Court in exercise of its
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India·
purportedly to get justice. In actual fact it sought and obtained interim
-orders which resulted in its not becoming liable to pay excise duty, which
under no circumstances, could have been a matter of dispute. A litigant
who obtains an incorrect order and does not pay the statutory dues should E
not be allowed to make any profit or gain from the infraction of law. The
money which was legitimately due to the Government has been utilised by
Oswal Agro in its business. Dealing with such cases which have financial
implications involving business houses or companies it is the commercial
principles which must be applied by the Court while ordering payment of F
interest. Had Oswal Agro, instead of using the Government money, ob-
tained the said amount of loan from a bank, it would have had to pay
interest thereon at the bank rate then prevailing. A lending institution like
a bank would normally have advanced money for the purposes of business
at the bank rate which is fixed \vith periodical.rest. In addition thereto, a G
bank would normally also obtain a collateral security so as to safe~ard the
loan advanced by it. Oswal Agro has, on the other hand, not paid the excise
dues to the Government and the Government money has presumably b.een
used in its business. No collateral security has been furnished by them
because none was ordered by the Court. Under these circumstances, there
is no reason as to why Oswal Agro should not be required to pay at least H
l04 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996J SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A that rate or interest, and on such terms, as it would have to pay to a bank
if that amount of money had been obtained by it on loan. Keeping this
principle in mind, it would be just and proper that Oswal Agro be directed
to pay, in addition to the excise duty payable, interest at the rate of 18%
per annum.

B CONCLUSION :

In view of the aforesaid discussion Oswal Agro is under an obligation
to pay the difference between the actual export price and the minimum
export price, fixed by the Appellant in respect of non-basmati rice exported
c by it in view of the interim orders which had been passed by the High Court
and this court permitting such export. According to the appellant taking
into consideration the total quantity of rice exported by Oswal Agro
between April, 1991 and March, 1992 when the minimum export price was
fixed at the rate of US $ 231 per MT and between April, 1992 and March
1993 when the minimum export price fixed was US $ 270 per M.T. the total
D amount payable by Oswal Agro would come to US $ 24, 54, 644 at the
current foreign exchange rate. We, accordingly, direct this amount to be
paid by Oswal Agro to the appellant within a period of four weeks from
the date of this judgment.

With regard to payment of duty regarding rice bran oil, counsel for
E both the parties have placed their respective charts on the record showing
the amount which is payable. Whereas, according to Oswal Agro the total
duty payabk is only Rs. 6,88,59,894.00 which includes basic duty and
auxiliary duty, according to the appellant the total duty payable is Rs.
19,75,55,192.97 and, in addition thereto interest of 12,55,09,088.40 as inter-
est @ 18% P.A. is payable. There is no dispute, as the charts show, 1vith
F regard to the quantity of rice bran oil which has been cleared by Oswal
Agro from 1990-91 to 1995-96. There is also no dispute with regard to the
sale price received. The difference in the final figure arises because Oswal
Agro have claimed deduction by way of expenses towards freight, octroi,
rebate and discount. In addition thereto, it has claimed that duty is payable
G at a lower rate in view of the Notification dated 17.10.1991 which had the
effect of reducing the effective rate of duty. The appellants, on the other
hand, have contended that the benefit of Notification like that of 7.10.1991
is not available since Oswal Agro had not obtained permission for the
authorities for clearance in the domestic tariff area.

H The perusal of the Notification in question indicates that the effective
AGRTCULTIJRALAND PROCE..<iSED roon PDTS. v. OSWAL AGROFURANEIKIRPAL J.J 105

rate of excise duty on clearance of goods from JOO% from export oriented A
unit to domestic tariff area would stand reduced if the goods so manufac-
11 11
tured are a1lo\ved to be sold in Tndia Os\val Agro never took permission
•

of the authorities concerned to sell the rice bran oil in India. It is only by
virtue of interim orders which were passed by the Punjab & Haryana High
Court in 1991, after being opposed by the authorities, that the oil was
B
removed from the bonded warehouse and sold in the domestic tariff area.
The conditional order passed by the High Court permitting the sale of the
oil in the domestic tariff area cannot be regarded as Oswal Agro having
been allowed to sell goods in the domestic tariff area as contemplated by
the said Notification dated 7.10.1991. In that view of the matter, full amount
of basic duty and auxiliary duty was payable by it. Taking into consideration C
the different quantities of oil cleared during different periods and keeping
in view the current rate of duty, the total amount of basic and auxiliary duty
payable by Oswal Agro would come to the aforesaid figure of Rs.
19,75,55,192.97 as calculated by the appellant. In addition thereto, Oswal
Agro is also liable to pay interest @ 18% as calculated by the appellant D
herein which comes to Rs. 12,55,09,088.00. It is hereby directed that Oswal
Agro shall pay this amount of duty and interest within eight weeks from
the date of this judgment and it shall also pay to the appellant herein, as
well as to the Union of India, one set of costs which are quantified at Rs.
50,000.

v.s.s. Appeal allowed.