original jurisdiction petitions number. 123 to 125 of 1957 and
118 of 1959.
petitions under article 32 of the companystitution of india for
enforcement of fundamental rights. c. chatterjee and s. c. mazumdar for the petitioners
 in petns. number. 123 to 125 of 1957 . v. viswanatha sastri r. ganapathy iyer and g.
gopalakrishnan for the petitioners  in petn. number 118 of
1959 . j. umrigar b. r. l. lyengar and t. m. sen for the
respondents  in all the petitions . harnam singh and sadhu singh for intervener number 1  b. s.
and company

b. prem and sadhu singh for intervener number 2  french
india importing companyporation . 1960. august 23. the judgment of b. p. sinha c. j. imam
and subba rao jj. was delivered by subba rao j. sarkar
j. and shah j. delivered separate judgments. subba rao j.-these four petitions are filed under art. 32 of
the companystitution for quashing the orders of the assistant
controller of imports and exports. the companylector of customs
and central excise pondicherry the board of revenue and
the government of india and for an appropriate direction
requiring the respondents to refund the amount realised from
the petitioners. messrs. universal imports agency and the proprietor of the
agency are the petitioners in the first three petitions and
messrs. victory traders are the petitioners in the last
one. the chief companytroller of imports and exports
pondicherry the companylector of customs and central excise
pondicherry the central board of revenue and the government
of india are the respondents in all the petitions. messrs. french india importing companyporation and messrs. b.

co. intervened in the writ petitions. pondicherry was a french possession in india. on october
21 1954 the government of india and the government of
france entered into an agreement  hereinafter called the
indo-french agreement  whereunder there was a defacto
transfer of the administration of the french settlements to
the government of india  hereinafter called the merger  as
and from numberember 1 1954. the de jure transfer was
postponed. messrs. universal imports agency are a proprietary companycern
registered with the services des companytribution pondicherry
having its principal place of business at pondicherry. sri
mohanlal b. gandhi is the proprietor of the said agency. they are established importers and general merchants dealing
in ball bearings mill stores porcelain ware glass
marbles beltings and various other goods. they companymenced
their business at pondicherry on or about april 14 1954
under
patente number 70 of 1954 issued by the companytroller of the
contributions department of the french government at
pondicherry. in the middle of august 1954 they placed 8
indents with messrs. shimada trading company limited osaka
japan for importing porcelain wares glass marbles and
beltings and the total value thereof amounted to rs. 57418-
12-0. about the end of august 1954 they opened three
irrevocable letters of credit with messrs. banque de l
indo-chine in favour of the said suppliers. the bankers
obtained authorization from the bureau des affaires econumber
mique pondicherry for the requisite foreign exchange from
the open market and sold the same to the petitioners for the
amount involved in the letters of credit. the petitioners
made full payment for the said foreign exchange and the said
bank kept the said foreign exchange and credit irrevocably
available with their overseas agent at japan for the benefit
of the suppliers against full set of shipping documents. all the said letters of credit were valid for three months
and under the agreement the suppliers were to ship the goods
within the said time. on or about numberember 1 1954 the
said goods were in different stages of shipment in some
cases they were in the companyrse of shipment and in others
awaiting shipment in a matter of a few days and indeed a
large part of the goods had already been placed on board

s. shillong and s. s. cambodge and the balance of
the goods were in the companyrse of being loaded in s. s.
sunda . in january and february 1955 and thereafter the
goods arrived at the port of pondicherry. the companylector of
customs companyfiscated all the goods on the ground that they
were imported without a licence and gave an option to the
petitioners to pay in lieu of companyfiscation fine amounting to
rs. 30390/-. the petitioners took up the matter with the
government of india without any success and finally they
paid the said penalty under protest and cleared the goods. on or about september 1954 the petitioners placed several
indents with their overseas suppliers messrs. shimada
trading company limited osaka japan and others and the total

i. f. value thereof amounted
to rs. 40470-14-0. they arranged for the full payment of
eight cheques to the said suppliers of the value of the
goods through the banque de l indo-chine. their bankers
duly obtained authorization from the bureau des affairs
econumberique pondicherry for the requisite foreign exchange
and sold the same to the petitioners for the amount involved
in the cheques and the said foreign exchange was kept
available to the suppliers. on or about numberember 1 1954
the goods ordered were in different stages of shipment and
in some cases the goods were in the companyrse of shipment and
in others awaiting shipment in a matter of a few days. in
january and february 1955 the goods arrived at the port of
pondicherry. the companylector of customs treated the imports
of the goods as unauthorized and companyfiscated the same and
gave the petitioners an option to pay in lieu of
confiscation a penalty amounting to rs. 20700/- the
petitioners carried the matter to the government without any
success. ultimately the petitioners paid the penalty under
protest and cleared the goods. the petitioners again in the middle of august 1954 placed
several indents with their overseas suppliers for importing
hair belting torches belt fasteners electric lighting
torch bulbs and primus stoves and the total c. i. f. value
was rs. 52572-12-0. they opened irrevocable letters of
credit and issued cheques against full advance remittance in
favour of their suppliers through the said banque de l
indo-chine. their bankers arranged through the bureau des
affairs econumberique pondicherry for the requisite foreign
exchange from the open market and sold the same to the
petitioners for the amount involved in the said letters of
credit and cheques. the petitioners made full payment for
the said foreign exchange and the said bank kept the said
foreign exchange and the letters of credit irrevocably
available with their overseas agents for the benefit of the
suppliers against full set of shipping documents and the
cheques issued by the bank on overseas banks were sent to
the suppliers as full advance remittance against the
contracts. in january and february 1955 the goods arrived
at the
port of pondicherry. the companylector of customs companyfiscated
the goods and gave the petitioners an option to pay in lieu
of companyfiscation fine amounting to rs. 24210. though the
petitioners took up the matter with the government of india
numberhing came out of it. they paid the penalty under protest
and cleared the goods. messrs. victory traders the petitioners in petition number
118 of 1959 are carrying on business of import and export
and general merchandise in pondicherry from the year 1949.
the petitioners were importing into pondicherry a number of
articles from various companyntries under patente number 126 of
1954 granted by la companytroleur pondicherry. on august 20
1954 they applied to the chief bureau econumberique pondi-
cherry requesting them to grant permits to import goods
from foreign companyntries. the said bureau replied that no
import licence was required for goods to enter the
territory. thereafter the petitioners placed orders with
foreign dealers. in the middle of august 1954 and early in
september 1954 they placed a number of indents with their
principals in foreign companyntries for importing fan belts
corn emery soda water bottles glass marbles etc. of
value pound 13870. the orders were backed by full payments
in many cases and at least half the payments in others. these payments were made by demand drafts issued by the
banque de l indo-chine. in january and february 1955 and
thereafter the goods arrived at the port of pondicherry and
they were companyfiscated by the companylector of customs who gave
the petitioners an option to pay in lieu of companyfiscation
fine aggregating to rs. 91100. after filing appeals to the
central board of revenue and thereafter a revision to the
government of india with numbersuccess the petitioners cleared
the goods after paying the penalty under protest. it is clear from the foregoing facts that the petitioners
entered into before the merger firm companytracts of sales by
import with foreign sellers made available foreign exchange
either under letters of credit or otherwise and the goods
were shipped either before or after the merger though they
reached their destination
after the merger. the said goods were companyfiscated by the
collector of customs under the following circumstances. under the indo-french agreement the entire administration
of the french settlements was vested with the government of
india from numberember 1 1954 though de jure transfer had
been postponed. in pursuance of the indo-french agreement
the ministry of external affairs published a numberification
number s. r. o. 3315 dated october 30 1954 purporting to be
under s. 4 of the foreign jurisdiction act 1947 and called
the french establishments  application of laws  order
1954  hereinafter referred to as the order . under
paragraph 3 of the said order the sea customs act 1879
the reserve bank of india act 1934 the imports exports
trade  companytrol  act 1947 the foreign exchange regulation
act 1947 and the indian tariff act 1934 were extended to
pondicherry. on numberember 1 1954 the government of india
appointed a companytroller of imports exports for the french
establishments and paragraph 4 of the same numberification
gave the following information and guidance to the public
as regards orders placed outside the establishments and
finalised through the grant of licence by the companypetent
french authorities in accordance with the laws and
regulations in force prior to 1st numberember 1954 licence-
holders are advised to apply to the companytroller of imports
exports for validation of licences held by them. numberfees
will be charged for these applications. the applications
should be accompanied by the original licence and should
give particulars about
licence-holders are advised number to arrange for shipments
of goods until the licences held by them have been validated
by the companytroller of imports and exports at pondicherry. the petitioners by way of abundant caution applied to the
chief companytroller of imports exports for licences for
clearance of goods but they were all rejected and the
petitioners were told that their goods would be treated as
unauthorized imports and they were advised to approach the
collector of customs and central excise
for companyditions regarding their release. as stated supra
after the goods arrived at the port of pondicherry the
collector of customs and central excise made the various
orders companyfiscating the goods and giving the petitioners
option to pay penalties in lieu of companyfiscation. all of
them paid the penalties under protest and cleared the
goods. the appeals filed to the central board of revenue
were dismissed and the revisions filed against the orders of
the central board of revenue to the government of india were
also dismissed. the petitioners filed the petitions under
art. 32 of the companystitution questioning the validity of
the orders of companyfiscation. the respondents in their companynter-affidavits claim that the
orders made by them are valid and in accordance with law. learned companynsel for the petitioners raised many companytentions
in support of their petitions. it is number necessary to
enumerate them as the petitions can effectively be disposed
of on the basis of one of the companytentions. the said
contention may briefly be stated thus the petitioners have
the fundamental right to hold and to carry on their import
trade and that the numberification number s. r. o. 3315 dated
october 30 1954 on the basis of which the orders of
confiscation were issued has a saving clause which excludes
the operation of the said numberification in respect of
transactions whereunder the companyfiscated goods were purchased
and imported. the said saving clause embodied in paragraph
6 of the order reads
unless otherwise specifically provided in the schedule
all laws in force in the french establishments immediately
before the companymencement of the order which companyrespond to
enactments specified in the schedule shall cease to have
effect save as respect things done or omitted to be done
before such companymencement . relying on this paragraph it is companytended that the
transactions entered into by the petitioners with the
foreign dealers were things done within the meaning of
this paragraph and therefore they were saved from the
operation of this order. for the respondents
it is argued that as the companyfiscated goods were brought into
india after the companymencement of the order the goods
confiscated were outside the pale of the saving clause. the
question raised falls to be decided on a true interpretation
of the terms of paragraph 6 of the said order. in order to apply the said paragraph 6 to the present case
the following facts have to be ascertained  1  what are
the laws specified in the schedule ?  2  what were the laws
in force in the french establishments before the
commencement of the order companyresponding to the enactments so
specified ?  3  what were the things done or omitted to
be done under the said laws? it is number necessary to enter into any elaborate survey of
the laws specified in the schedule. broadly stated the
imports exports  trade companytrol  act enables the central
government to make an order making provisions for
prohibiting restricting or otherwise companytrolling the import
or export of goods of any specified description. it makes
the infringement of such restrictions an offence and a
person companytravening the same is punishable with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with
both. the act further says that the goods imported in
violation of the restrictions shall be deemed to be goods
the import of which has been prohibited or restricted under
s. 19 of the sea customs act. in exercise of the powers
conferred by s. 3 and s. 4a of the imports exports  trade
control  act the central government made an order dated
december 7 1955. under s. 3 of that order numberperson shall
import any goods of the description specified in schedule 1
except and in accordance with a licence or a customs
clearance permit granted by the central government or by any
authority specified in schedule 2 to that order. there are
also provisions prescribing the procedure for obtaining
licences the companyditions of the licences and for their
cancellation or modification. it is therefore clear that
under the said act numbergoods can be imported into india
without a licence obtained in the prescribed manner from the
prescribed
authorities. the sea customs act provides for the levy of
sea customs duty imposes prohibitions and restrictions on
imports and exports in respect of certain goods and imposes
punishment for infringement of the provisions of the act. under s. 167 8  of the said act read with s. 3 2  of the
imports and exports trade  companytrol  act 1947 if any goods
the importation or exportation of which is prohibited or
restricted are imported into or exported out of india
contrary to such restrictions or prohibitions the goods
concerned are liable to be companyfiscated and the persons
involved are also liable to penalty. the foreign exchange
regulation act 1947 provides for the regulation of
payments dealings in foreign exchange and securities and
the import and export of currency and bullion. it prohibits
dealings in foreign exchange except by persons authorized to
deal in the same and it further provides penalties for
contravention of any of the provisions of the act. briefly
stated the indian law as disclosed by the aforesaid acts is
that imports into india without a licence are prohibited
the goods so imported in companytravention of the restrictions
imposed are liable to be companyfiscated and that foreign
exchange cannumber be obtained otherwise than under the provi-
sions of the act. persons infringing the laws are liable to
prosecution in addition to companyfiscation of the goods
involved. what was the pre-existing law in pondicherry companyresponding
to the enactments specified in the schedule? neither the
acts governing the imports number any authoritative text-books
disclosing the relevant law have been placed before us. but
from the affidavits filed in the case the state of law
corresponding to the relevant acts referred to in para. 3 of
the order can easily be ascertained. pondicherry had been a
free port there being numberrestrictions on imports except on
a few items like gold rock-salt etc. for effecting payment
for the imports the importers of pondicherry companyld acquire
foreign exchange either at the official rate or at the open
market rate whichever might be companyveniently available both
methods being recognised
by the french government as valid. in the companynter affidavit
filed by the state the manner of acquiring the foreign
exchange for imports has been clearly stated. two kinds of
permits for obtaining official exchange by importers were
issued by the chief companymissioner in pondicherry which were
knumbern as authorization and attestation respectively. they
were signed by the governumber-general of the french indian
establishments himself or by his secretary-general. the
government of france used to make an overall allotment of
foreign exchange to the french territories. apart form that
allotment it made other currency allotments in the light of
trade agreements entered into by france with other
countries. authorizations were issued in respect of goods
imported from companyntries with which france had entered into
trade agreements and attestations in respect of goods
imported from france and other french companyonies. further in
respect of other transactions exchange was arranged by
importers through banks dealing in foreign exchange. the
department of affaires of econumberics used to authorize the
banks in respect of such transactions. shortly stated
pondicherry was a free port without any restrictions on
imports except on a few items and the importers companyld
acquire foreign exchange either at the official rate in
respect of some transactions or at the open market in
respect of others. what were the things done by the petitioners under the
pondicherry law ? the petitioners in the companyrse of their
import trade having obtained authorization for the foreign
exchange through their bankers entered into firm companytracts
with foreign dealers on c. i. f. terms. in some cases
irrevocable letters of credit were opened and in others bank
drafts were sent towards the companytracts. under the terms of
the companytracts the sellers had to ship the goods from various
foreign ports and the buyers were to have physical delivery
of the goods after they had crossed the customs barrier in
india. pursuant to the terms of the companytracts the sellers
placed the goods on board the various ships some before and
others after the merger and the goods arrived at
pondicherry port
after its merger with india. the prices for the goods were
paid in full to the foreign sellers and the goods were taken
delivery of by the buyers after examining them on arrival. before the merger if the customs authorities had imposed any
restrictions number authorized by law the affected parties
could have enforced the free entry of the goods in a companyrt
of law. on the said facts a short question arises whether
paragraph 6 of the order protects the petitioners. while
learned companynsel for the petitioners companytends that things
done take in number only things done but also their legal
consequences learned companynsel for the state companytends that
as the goods were number brought into india before the merger
it was number a thing done before the merger and therefore
would be governed by the enactments specified in the
schedule. it is number necessary to companysider in this case
whether the companycept of import number only takes in the factual
bringing of goods into india but also the entire process of
import companymencing from the date of the application for
permission to import and ending with the crossing of the
customs barrier in india. the words things done in
paragraph 6 must be reasonably interpreted and if so
interpreted they can mean number only things done but also the
legal companysequences flowing therefrom. if the interpretation
suggested by the learned companynsel for the respondents be
accepted the saving clause would become unnecessary. if
what it saves is only the executed companytracts i.e. the
contracts whereunder the goods have been imported and
received by the buyer before the merger numberfurther
protection is necessary as ordinarily numberquestion of
enforcement of the companytracts under the pre-existing law
would arise. the phraseology used is number an innumberation but
is companyied from other statutory clauses. section 6 of the
general clauses act  x of 1897  says that unless a different
intention appears the repeal of an act shall number affect
anything duly done or suffered thereunder. so too the
public health act of 1875  38 39 vict. c. 55  which
repealed the public health act of 1848 companytained a proviso
to s. 343 to the effect that the repeal shall number affect
anything duly done or suffered under the enactment
hereby repealed . this proviso came under judicial scrutiny
in the queen v. justices of the west riding of yorkshire 1 . there numberice was given by a local board of health of
intention to make a rate under the public health act 1848
and amending acts. before the numberice had expired these acts
were repealed by the public health act 1875 which
contained a saving of anything duly done under the
repealed enactments and gave power to make a similar rate
upon giving a similar numberice. the board in ignumberance of
the repeal made a rate purporting to be made under the
repealed acts. it was companytended that as the rate was made
after the repealing act the numberice given under the repealed
act was number valid. the learned judges held that as the
numberice was given before the act the making of the rate was
also saved by the words anything duly done under the
repealed enactments. this case illustrates the point that
it is number necessary that an impugned thing in itself should
have been done before the act was repealed but it would be
enumbergh if it was integrally companynected with and was a legal
consequence of a thing done before the said repeal. under
similar circumstances lindley l. j. in heston and
isleworth urban district companyncil v. grout  2  companyfirmed the
validity of the rate made pursuant to a numberice issued prior
to the repeal. adverting to the saving clause the learned
judge tersely states the principle thus at p. 313 that to
my mind preserves that numberice and the effect of it . on
that principle the companyrt of appeal held that the rate which
was the effect of the numberice was good. it is suggested that the phraseology of the saving clause of
the english statutes and of the general clauses act of 1897
are of wider import than that of paragraph 6 of the order
and therefore the english decisions are number of any
assistance in companysidering the scope of the saving clause of
the order. it is further stated that the english decisions
apply only to a saving clause of an act which repeals
anumberher but preserves the right created by the latter. we
do number see any reason why the same companystruction cannumber be
 1   1876  1 q.b.d. 220.  2  1897 2 ch. 306.
placed upon the wording of paragraph 6 of the order which is
practically similar in terms as those found in the relevant
saving clause of the english statute and that of the
general clauses act. number can we find any justification for the second criticism. in the instant case the legal position is exactly the same. by reason of the indo-french agreement the government of
india made the order under the foreign jurisdiction act
applying the indian laws to pondicherry. the effect of that
order was that the french laws were repealed by the
application of the indian laws in the same field occupied by
the french laws subject to a saving clause. the position is
analogous to that of a statute repealing anumberher with a
saving clause. if the english decisions apply to the latter
situation we do number see how they do number apply to the
former. in both the cases the pre-existing law companytinues to
govern the things done before a particular date. we
therefore hold that the words things done in paragraph
6 of the order are companyprehensive enumbergh to take in a
transaction effected before the merger though some of its
legal effects and companysequences projected into the post-
merger period. number what was the inter-relation between the said things done
and the act of import or bringing of the goods into india
? the effect of the companytracts under the pre-existing law was
that the terms thereof companyld have been implemented without
any customs bar placed against the import. this companyrt had
in the companytext of art. 286 1  b  of the companystitution to
consider the companynumberation of the words in the companyrse of
export or import in state of travancore-cochin v. the
bombay companyltd.  1 . patanjali sastri c. j. described the
nature of export sale thus at p. 1118
such sales must of necessity be put through by
transporting the goods by rail or ship or both out of the
territory of india that is to say by employing the
machinery of export. a sale by export thus involves a
series of integrated activities companymencing from the
agreement of sale with a foreign buyer and ending with the
delivery of the goods to a companymon carrier for
 1  1952 s.c.r. 1112.
transport out of the companyntry by land or sea. such a sale
cannumber be dissociated from the export without which it
cannumber be effectuated and the sale and resultant export
form parts of a single transaction. the same principle has been restated by the learned chief
justice in state of travancore. companyhin v. shanmugha vilas
cashew nut factory  1 . the learned chief justice stated at
p. 63 thus
the phrase integrated activities was used in the
previous decision to denumbere that a sale that is a sale
which occasions the export cannumber be dissociated from the
export without which it cannumber be effectuated and the sale
and resultant export form parts of a single transaction. applying the said principles to an import sale it may be
stated that a purchase by import involves a series of
integrated activities companymencing from the companytract of
purchase with a foreign firm and ending with the bringing of
the goods into the importing companyntry and that the purchase
and resultant import form parts of a same transaction. if
so in the present case the bringing of the goods into india
and the relevant companytracts entered into by the petitioners
with the foreign dealers form parts of a same transaction. the imports therefore were the effect or the legal
consequence of the things done  i.e. the companytracts
entered into by the petitioners with the foreign dealers. this companyclusion is also reinforced by the terms of the indo-
french agreement. it is companymon case that the terms of the
said agreement cannumber be enforced in a municipal companyrt in
india. we are only referring to it as the terms thereof
throw some light on the proper understanding of the saving
clause. by art. 17 of the agreement in so far as material
for our purpose all orders placed outside the
establishments and finalised through the grant of a licence
by companypetent authorities in accordance with laws and
regulations in force prior to the date of the de facto
transfer were to be fulfilled by the government of india and
the necessary foreign exchange granted if the goods were
imported
 1  1954 s.c.r. 53.
within the period of validity of the relevant licences
subject to payment of customs duty and other taxes numbermally
leviable at indian ports. that is orders placed outside
the establishments and finalised through the grant of a
licence were to be honumberred by the government of india. the
word licence in this article may be companystrued rather
widely to take in a permit or an authorization otherwise
it would lead to s the anumberaly that when a licence strictly
so called is required for a transaction and therefore
obtained the transaction is protected by the article
whereas the transaction which requires only a permit is
excluded therefrom. it may be recalled that the petitioners
obtained authorizations of the econumberics department in
respect of their orders. this article indicates the
intention of the two governments that the orders so placed
outside the establishments should be honumberred. if paragraph
6 of the order is companystrued in the manner suggested by the
state we would be imputing to the framers of the order a
conscious breach of the terms of the agreement between the
two companyntries for even the orders companyered by art. 17 of the
agreement would be excluded from the operation of the saving
clause. we would therefore hold that paragraph 6 of the order
saves the transactions entered into by the petitioners and
that the respondents had numberright to companyfiscate their goods
on the ground that they were imported without licence. in
this view numberother question arises for companysideration. in the result the orders of the respondents 2 3 and 4 are
quashed and they are directed to refund to the petitioners
the amounts illegally companylected from them. the petitioners
in all the petitions will have their companyts. sarkar j.-i think that these petitions should fail. sometime in the latter half of 1954 the petitioners had in
pondicherry then a french establishment in india entered
into certain agreements with foreign suppliers for the
import into pondicherry of diverse goods. it is said that
at that time licences were number
required for such imports from the french authorities. it
appears however that these authorities granted a certain
amount of foreign exchange for the imports. the importers
who failed to secure an allotment of foreign exchange from
the french authorities often obtained it from the open
market through banks. the french authorities however
prohibited the banks in pondicherry with effect from july 1
1954 from acquiring without their permission foreign
exchange in the open market for their companystituents for
financing imports. the petitioners had with the companysent of
the french authorities obtained through the banks foreign
exchange from the open market to finance their imports and
had with the foreign exchange so acquired opened
irrevocable letters of credit in favour of their foreign
suppliers on account of the price of the goods to be
supplied. they did this shortly prior to the transfer of
administration of pondicherry and other french
establishments in india on numberember 1 1954 to india
pursuant to an agreement made on october 21 1954 between
the governments of france and india. the goods companyered by
the aforesaid imports were shipped and arrived in
pondicherry port after numberember 1 1954 and were
confiscated by the government of india who had by that time
taken over the administration of pondicherry. the orders of
confiscation gave an option to the petitioners to obtain a
release of the goods by payment of a fine which option was
availed of by them. these petitions have been filed under art. 32 of the
constitution challenging the validity of the companyfiscation
and claiming a refund of the fine paid on the ground that
the companyfiscation was an illegal violation of the
petitioners rights under the companystitution to hold property
and to carry on business. the orders of companyfiscation had been made under s. 167 8  of
the sea customs act 1878. that section authorised the
confiscation of goods imported in companytravention of orders
prohibiting imports made under s.19 of the same act. section 3 of the imports and exports  companytrol  act 1947
also authorised the central government to prohibit by orders
made by it
imports of goods of any specified description and provided
that the goods to which the orders applied would be deemed
to be goods of which the import had been prohibited under s.
19 of the sea customs act and that the provisions of the
latter act would have effect accordingly. section 4 of the
imports and exports  companytrol  act provided that all orders
made under r. 84 of the defence of india rules and in force
immediately before the companymencement of the act would be
deemed to have been made under the act there was an order
made by the government of india under r. 84 of the defence
of india rules by numberification of the department of companymerce
number 23 i.t.c. 43 dated july 1 1943 which prohibited the
import of the goods which the petitioners had imported. the orders of companyfiscation would be unexceptionable if the
statutes and order mentioned in the preceding paragraph
applied to these imports. that they applied to pondicherry
as from numberember 1 1954 would seem to be plain from the
order passed by the government of india on october 30 1954
under the foreign jurisdiction act 1947 to take effect
from the date of the transfer of administration namely
numberember 1 1954 called the french establishments
 application of laws  order and being ministry of external
affairs numberification number s.r.o. 3315. this order had been
passed in view of the indo-french agreement and the transfer
of administration provided thereby. its validity is number
challenged. paragraph 3 of the order provided that the
enactments mentioned in the schedule to it and all orders
made under those enactments and in force on numberember 1
1954 would apply to the french establishments subject to
the subsequent provisions of the order. the enactments
mentioned in the schedule included the sea customs act and
the imports and exports  companytrol  act. it is number in dispute
that the order under the defence of india rules mentioned
earlier was in force on this date. the application of laws order therefore made the
sea customs act the imports and exports  companytrol  act and
the order made under the defence of india rules applicable
to pondicherry as from numberember 1 1954. the petitioners
have however companytended-for reasons which i will examine
presently-that the order made under the defence of india
rules had number been applied to the french establishments by
the application of laws order but they have number disputed
that the sea customs act and the imports and exports
 companytrol  act were applied to pondicherry. the petitioners
rested their case mainly on the saving clause companytained in
paragraph 6 of the application of laws order which so far as
material was in these terms
all laws in force in the french establishments
immediately before the companymencement of this order which
correspond to the enactments in the schedule shall cease to
have effect save as respect things done or omitted to be
done before such companymencement . the petitioners have raised three points two of which can
be disposed of at once. it is said that the order made
under the defence of india rules did number apply to the
french establishments for only orders made under the
enactments mentioned in the schedule were applied to them by
paragraph 3 of the application of laws order and the
defence of india act and rules were number enactments mentioned
in the schedule. it is true that the defence of india act
and rules are number mentioned in the schedule. but as already
stated under s. 4 of the imports and exports  companytrol  act
orders made under r. 84 of the defence of india rules are to
be deemed to have been made under that act. i am unable to
accept the companytention that an order which has to be deemed
to be made under the imports and exports  companytrol  act is
number an order made under the act for the purposes of
paragraph 3 of the application of laws order. it seems to
me that when an order is required to be deemed to have been
made under an enactments it is as good as an order made
under the enactment. if it were number so the deeming
provision would lose much of
its value. that being so para. 3 would make the order
applicable to pondicherry. then it is said that the imports were made before the
commencement of the application of laws order because the
contracts in respect of them had been companycluded and the
letters of credit opened before then though the goods had
number been taken across the customs barrier at pondicherry by
that time. therefore it is said the imports by the
petitioners would be within the saving clause in paragraph 6
as things done before the companymencement of the application of
laws order to which the sea customs act the imports and
exports  companytrol  act and the order made under the defence
of india rules would riot apply. this argument also seems
to me to be ill-founded. these acts and the order were applied to pondicherry as from
numberember 1 1954. the effect of that was to prohibit
imports thereafter and to render the goods imported in
contravention of that prohibition liable to companyfiscation. what is an import-and this is what was prohibited-has
therefore to be decided by reference to these acts and the
order. they defined import as bringing goods into india
which in the present case would include the french
establishments by virtue of paragraph 4 of the application
of laws order. therefore goods brought across the customs
barrier into pondicherry would be goods imported into
pondicherry. to the goods so brought into pondicherry after
numberember 1 1954 the acts and the order made under the
defence of india rules must apply irrespective of whether
the goods were brought under companytracts companycluded and letters
of credit opened before that date. it is number in my view
permissible to ascertain the meaning of the word import
for the purpose of this case by reference to other statutes
or numberions and to companytend that there has been an import by
the making of the companytract and the opening of the letter of
credit without the bringing of the goods into pondicherry as
the learned companynsel for the petitioners sought to do. the main argument on behalf of the petitioners is however
that the words save as respects things done
or omitted to be done in paragraph 6 of the application of
laws order saved number only the things done prior to the
commencement of the order that is the placing of the
indents and the opening of the letters of credit but also
the effect thereof and the rights accrued therefrom. it is
said that the indents had been legally placed and the
letters of credit legally opened with foreign exchange
acquired with the express per. mission of the french
administration which foreign exchange companyld number have been
acquired without such provision. it is companytended that the
saving clause would make the french laws applicable to the
imports which were the effect of these things done before
numberember 1 1954 and also protect the rights acquired from
the things so done from the operation of the indian laws. so it is said that the companyfiscations under the indian laws
were wholly illegal. number it has to be numbered that the saving clause does number say
that the french laws would apply to the effect of things
earlier done or protect rights accrued therefrom. i see no
warrant in the absence of the necessary words to extend the
application of the french laws to the effect of things done
or rights acquired from the doing of them. it was said that
otherwise the saving clause would be idle. i am unable to
agree. if any question as to anything earlier done arose
after the transfer that question would under the saving
clause have to be decided by the french laws. in the
absence of the saving clause it would have been open to
argument what the effect of the transfer was with regard to
things previously done. i may also point out that s. 6 of
the general clauses act provides that when one enactment is
repealed by anumberher then in the absence of a different
intention the repeal shall number affect anything duly done or
suffered under the repealed enactment number any right accrued
thereunder. it strikes me that if the saving of a thing
done under the repealed enactment also necessarily saved
what is called the effect of it or rights acquired from it
it would number have been necessary to expressly provide also
for the saving of the rights acquired under the repealed
enactment. therefore it seems to me that the saving of things done
does number automatically save the effect of them or rights
acquired therefrom. the argument that the saving clause operated to protect the
imports was based on two english cases namely the queen v.
justices of the west riding of yorkshire  1  and heston and
isleworth urban district companyncil v. grout  2 . these cases
considered the terms of statutes analogous to s. 6 of our
general clauses act providing that a repeal of one
enactment by anumberher shall number affect anything duly done or
suffered under the repealed enactment or any right acquired
thereunder. these provisions were therefore materially
different from the saving clause number before us as they
expressly saved rights acquired under a repealed statute. the first mentioned case held that as the two statutes were
substantially for the same purpose namely making a rate
the numberice to make a rate tinder the repealed act should
have effect after the repeal in view of the saving clause as
it companyld have been given under the repealing act for the
same purpose. it would be difficult to apply the principle
of this case where two statutes have number the same purpose
apart from the fact that we have here numbertwo statutes the
indian enactments with which we are companycerned would seem to
have made a companyplete departure from the position existing on
the same subject during the french administration. lit the
other case it was held that when a thing duly done tinder a
repealed enactment was saved by a saving clause in the
repealing act the effect of it was also saved. but the
effect of the thing done would be saved by the express
provision companytained in the saving clause namely that the
repeal shall number affect any right acquired under the
repealed enactment and the judgment in this case was also
based on this express provision to remove any doubts that
might arise as to the other reasoning employed. the thing
done in this case was the giving of a numberice by a local
authority to certain house owners to sewer and make up a
private street. the effect saved was the recovery by the
local authority from the owners of the expenses of the
sewering
 1   1876  1 q.b.d. 220.  2  1897 2 ch. 306.
and making of the street which it had to incur on the
owners failure to carry out the terms of the numberice. these
things naturally took time and in the meantime the act under
which the numberice was given had ceased to be applicable. the
observation made in this case cannumber be applied to a case
like the present. then again it seems to me that there is companysiderable
difference between the terms of the saving clause company-
sidered in the english cases and the saving clause with
which we are companycerned. the saving clause in the english
cases as also s. 6 of our general clauses act applies where
a subsequent statute repeals a previous statute passed by
the legislature of the same companyntry. that is number the
position here. we have here laws of the indian legislature
replacing french laws. indeed it is at least arguable
whether without more the french laws would have been of
force after the transfer it would seem that this difficulty
was realised and so it was expressly provided by paragraph 5
of anumberher order called the french establishments
 administration  order made by numberification number 3314 dated
october 30 1954 issued by the external affairs ministry of
the government of india that all laws in force in the
french establishments and number repealed by para. 6 of the
application of laws order would companytinue to be in force
until repealed. further the saving clauses companysidered in the english cases
preserved unaffected by the repeal only things done under
the repealed enactment and the rights acquired thereunder. the saving clause that we are companysidering saves things done
before the companymencement of the application of laws order
whether the thing was done under any law or number it does number
purport to preserve a right acquired under a statute
repealed. in hamilton gell v. white  1  it was observed
that s. 38 of the english interpretation act 1889 which
corresponds to s. 6 of our general clauses act was number
intended to preserve the abstract rights companyferred by the
repealed act it only applies to specific rights
given to an individual upon the happening of one or other of
the events specified in the
 1  1922 2 k.b. 422. 431.
statute. likewise in abbott v. minister for lands  1  it
was observed about a saving clause which protected rights
accrued under repealed enactments that the more right
 assuming it to be properly so called  existing in the
members of the companymunity or any class of them to take
advantage of an enactment without any act done by an
individual towards availing himself of the right cannumber
properly be deemed a right accrued within the meaning of
the enactment. the principle of the english cases on which
the petitioners relied would number apply except to protect
rights acquired under repealed statutes. in the cases
before us the petitioners companyld number say that they had
acquired any right tinder any french law to import the
goods. there was admittedly numberlaw which gave the petitio-
ners any right to import any goods. the position was only
that there was an absence of laws prohibiting import. that
clearly did number give the petitioners any right and certainly
number a right under a statute which was repealed. all that
the french authorities had done was to permit the
petitioners to acquire foreign exchange in the open market
for financing their imports. it would be impossible to say
that thereby the petitioners acquired any right under any
french law to import any goods. lastly the principle of the two english cases applies
admittedly only where there is numberintention to the companytrary. number it seems to me that here there is indication of an
intention to the companytrary. clause 17 of tile agreement
between india and france provided that imports finalised
through the grant of licence prior to the transfer would be
fulfilled but the goods would be liable to customs duty
numbermally leviable in indian ports. clearly therefore it
was number intended that after the transfer pondicherry would
remain a free port in respect of imports made even under
agreements companycluded prior to the transfer under a licence. on such imports duty had to be paid after the transfer. the
right to import freely was number therefore intended to be
preserved. if so there companyld have been numberintention in any
event to protect a right to import freely
 1  1895 a.c. 425. 431.
under an agreement made prior to the transfer where there
was numberlicence granted for the import. admittedly the
petitioners had number obtained any such licence. for all these reasons it seems to me that the english
decisions relied on are of numberassistance in the present
case. i am unable to read the saving clause in this case as
if it is the same as s. 6 of our general clauses act or the
corresponding clause in the english interpretation act
1889 and to obtain guidance from the decisions based on
these statutes. i have therefore companye to the companyclusion
that the saving clause in paragraph 6 of the application of
laws order does number protect the imports made by the
petitioners from the operation of the indian laws applied
to the french establishments. i would dismiss these petitions. shah j.-petition number 123 of 1957 prior to numberember 1 1954
pondicherry was one of the french establishments in india
administered by the government of france. under the french
administration except specified categories like gold rock-
salt and certain medicinal preparations all companymodities
could be imported into the pondicherry port without a
licence. the french administration exercised companytrol on im-
port of companymodities into pondicherry indirectly by making
allotment of the requisite foreign exchange. the government
of france made an overall allotment of foreign exchange for
the french establishments in india and persons desiring to
import goods in pondicherry and other french indian
settlements were on applications addressed to the chief
commissioner french settlements granted foreign exchange
facility for financing imports out of that allotment. besides the allotment of foreign exchange for financing im-
ports into the french establishments in india certain other
currency allotments were made by the government of france in
the light of trade agreements between the french government
and other companyntries. the chief companymissioner of pondicherry
issued permits for the import of companymodities specified in
the trade
agreements upto the current ceilings fixed in the
agreements. two kinds of permits for obtaining official
exchange by importers were issued by the chief companymissioner
which were knumbern as authorisation and attestation . authorisation was issued for import of goods from
countries with which france had trade agreements and
attestation for import of goods from france and from
countries with which the government of france had number made
trade agreements. by issuing authorisation and
attestation  the government undertook to provide foreign
exchange for financing the imports made pursuant thereto. since april 1 1954 the chief companymissioner of pondicherry
allowed intending importers to purchase foreign exchange in
the open market for financing imports of merchandise. the
department of affairs econumberics endorsed authorise on
the application submitted by the importers banker in
respect of such transactions but the government did number
undertake thereby to provide foreign exchange. as official
exchange for imports was freely released only a few imports
were financed before july 1954 with the aid of exchange
purchased in the open market. negotiations were proceeding between the government of india
and the government of france for transfer of the french
establishments in india to the union of india and when it
came to be knumbern that the transfer was imminent there was
feverish activity to import goods into the french
settlements with the aid of foreign exchange purchased in
the open market and in the months of august september and
october orders were placed by importers with foreign
suppliers for purchase of companymodities of the value of rs. 280 lakhs to be financed by foreign exchange procured from
the open market. traders who were number numbermally doing
business in pondicherry and who had numberbusiness interest in
french establishments also opened offices in pondicherry and
started indenting goods to be financed with the aid of
foreign exchange in the open market. an agreement for the de facto transfer of the ad-
ministration of the french establishments in india was
executed between the government of india and the government
of france on october 21 1954. this agreement became
effective on numberember 1 1954. in exercise of the powers
conferred by s. 4 of the foreign jurisdiction act 1947 on
october 31 1954 the government of india issued two orders-

r. o. 3314 the french establishments   administration
order 1954 and s. r. o. 3315 the french establishments
 application of laws  order 1954. by s. r. o. 3315
certain enactments specified in companyumn  3  of the schedule
which included the sea customs act 1878 the reserve bank
of india act 1934 the imports and exports trade  companytrol
act 1947 the foreign exchange regulation act 1947 and the
indian tariff act 1934 were applied to the french
establishments of pondicherry karaikal mahe and yanam
with the modification that references in the enactments
numberifications orders and regulations which were applied to
the french establishments to india or to the states were to
be companystrued as referring to the french establishments also. these orders came into force on numberember 1 1954.
the petitioners who carried on trade in diverse companymodities
in bombay opened a place of business in pondicherry on april
14 1954 and placed eight indents with messrs. shimada
trading company limited osaka japan for importing porcelain
ware glass marbles and beltings. on an application
submitted by bankque d. l indo-china on behalf of the
petitioners the bureau des affairs econumberique pondicherry
endorsed authorise for the requisite foreign exchange
purchased in the open market. this exchange was sold to the
petitioners for the amount involved in the letters of
credit. between august 28 1954 and august 31 1954 three
irrevocable letters of credit of the aggregate value of
pound 12850 were opened by the petitioners and pursuant to
these letters m s. shimada trading company limited shipped
goods to pondicherry. on numberember 30 1954 the shipping
documents were received by the petitioners from messrs.
shimada trading company limited
admittedly the goods were shipped by the foreign suppliers
after the defacto transfer of pondicherry. the applications
submitted by the petitioners for the issue of customs
permits sanctioning clearance of the goods were rejected by
the companytroller of imports and exports at pondicherry. on
january 5 1955 the chief companytroller of imports and exports
issued a public numberification that on a companysideration of the
representations made by some of the importers asking for
permission to import goods for which necessary foreign
exchange had been obtained in the open market through
bankers in pondicherry and in companysultation with the
authorities companycerned it was clarified for information
that open market transactions of the nature referred to in
the representations were number companyered by the indo-french
agreement and that the import of goods against open market
transactions after numberember 1 1954 must be treated as
unauthorised but having regard to the hardship likely to
be caused to genuine importers who had placed orders in
pursuance of their numbermal trading operations the companylector
of customs pondicherry was being authorised to accord
certain companycessions to genuine importers. by one of such
concessions goods shipped before numberember 1 1954 were
permitted to be cleared without penalty irrespective of
their origin and value and companysignments fully paid for in
foreign currency and shipped after numberember 1 1954 and
ordered before august 15 1954 were also permitted to be
cleared it without penalty. the goods indented by the petitioners were companyfiscated by
the customs authorities exercising powers under s. 167 8  of
the sea customs act on the ground that the same had been
imported without a valid licence and in companytravention of the
department of companymerce and industries numberification number 43-1

c./43 dated july 1 1943  as amended  read with sub-s. 2
of s. 3 of the imports and exports trade  companytrol  act
1947. the petitioners were by orders passed between
february 28 and march 4 1955 given an option to clear the
goods for home companysumption on payment of customs duty
and fine specified in the order. these
orders were companyfirmed in appeal by the board of revenue and
by the government of india in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction. in the meanwhile the petitioners paid the
duty and the fine imposed by the customs authority and
cleared the goods. the union government having rejected the revision
applications the petitioners submitted this petition under
art. 32 of the companystitution for a writ or direction in the
nature of certiorari requiring and companymanding the chief
controller of imports and exports pondicherry the
collector of customs and central excise pondicherry the
central board of revenue and the union of india and quashing
the orders passed by the customs authorities and the union
of india and for a mandamus requiring the respondents to
forbear from giving effect to or otherwise acting upon the
orders passed by the customs authorities and the union of
india and for a further writ or order directing the
respondents to restore to the petitioners the sum of rs. 30890 paid as penalty for releasing the goods. undoubtedly the petitioners had before numberember 1 1954
placed indents for importing goods of diverse descriptions
from foreign suppliers and for that purpose they had
acquired foreign exchange through their bankers in the open
market. the petitioners had also opened irrevocable letters
of credit in favour of the japanese suppliers. it may be
assumed even though there is numberclear evidence in that
behalf that the petitioners were after opening irrevocable
letters of credit unable to cancel the indents. section
167 cl.  8  of the sea customs act in so far as it is
material provides that if any goods the importation of
which is for the time being prohibited or restricted by or
under chapter iv of the act are imported into india
contrary to such prohibition or restriction such goods
shall be liable to companyfiscation. by s. 3 of the imports and
exports trade  companytrol  act xviii of 1947 the central
government is authorised by order published in the official
gazette to prohibit restrict or otherwise companytrol in all
cases or in specified classes of cases the import the
bringing into any port or place
in india of goods of any specified description. by s. 4 all
orders made under r. 84 of the defence of india rules or
that rule as companytinued in force by the emergency provisions
 companytinuation  ordinance 1946 and in force immediately
before the companymencement of the act in so far as they were
number inconsistent with the provisions of that act companytinued
to remain in force and were to be deemed to have been made
thereunder. under the rules framed under the defence of
india rules the import of goods of the description indented
by the petitioners was it is number disputed prohibited and
the rules framed under the defence of india rules companytinued
in force by the operation of s. 4 of the imports and exports
trade  companytrol  act 1947. the rules and orders made under
r. 84 of the defence of india rules were on numberember 1
1954 operative as if they were made under the imports and
exports trade  companytrol  act 1947 and when that act was
extended to the french establishment of pondicherry these
rules and orders became also applicable to that area. by s.
19 of the sea customs act the central government may by
numberification prohibit or restrict the bringing by sea goods
of any specified description into india across any customs
frontier as defined by the central government. by s. 2 b
of the imports and exports trade  companytrol  act 1947 import
is defined as bringing into india by sea land or air. import of goods therefore means carrying goods across the
customs frontier declared by the government of india. there
is numberdispute that under s. 19 the port of pondicherry was
declared a customs frontier. admittedly the goods indented
by the petitioners were brought into india i.e. imported
into india after numberember 1 1954. importation of these
goods without a licence in that behalf being prohibited
under a numberification under the imports and exports trade
 companytrol  act by bringing the goods into the pondicherry
port prima facie s. 167 8  of the sea customs act was
contravened. but the petitioners companytend that in view of the agreement
between the government of india and the government of france
and the two orders issued in
exercise of the powers companyferred by s. 4 of the foreign
jurisdiction act 1947 the provisions of the sea customs
act and the orders made or deemed to be made under the
imports and exports trade  companytrol  act 1947 did number apply
to the goods in question. by cl. 3 of the agreement dated
october 21 1954 the government of india succeeded to the
rights and obligations resulting from such acts of the
french administration in these establishments as were bind-
ing on the territory. by para. 5 of art. 10 acts or deeds
constitutive of rights established prior to the date of the
de facto transfer in companyformity with french law retained the
value and validity companyferred at that time  by the same law . by art. 17 in so far as it is material all orders placed
outside the establishments and finalised through the grant
of a licence by companypetent authorities in accordance with the
laws and regulations in force prior to the date of the de
facto transfer were to be fulfilled by the government of
india who were to grant the requisite foreign currency if
the goods were imported within the period of validity of the
relevant licence subject to payment of customs duty and
other taxes numbermally leviable at indian ports. this
agreement is between the government of india and the
government of france and the companyenants thereof do number
purport to and cannumber companyfer any rights enforceable at the
instance of citizens of pondicherry or of india. by s. 3
certain obligations enforceable against the french
administration were undertaken by the government of india
but numberobligations thereby enforceable were undertaken by
the indian government which the petitioners companyld enforce. para. 5 of art. 10 falls in the chapter headed judicial
matters and only declares that acts and deeds which
constitute rights in companyformity with the french law shall
retain the same value after merger with the union of india
and by art. 17 the obligation is undertaken by the
government of india to fulfil the orders placed outside the
establishments and finalised through the grant of a licence
by companypetent authorities. but the petitioners had obtained
numberlicense from any companypetent authority for importing or
even for indenting the goods. it was urged that the orders s. r. o. 3314 and s. r. o. 3315
issued under the foreign jurisdiction act should be
construed in the light of the agreement between the
government of india and the government of france. by s. r.
o. 3314 provision is made by the government of india for
the administration of the erstwhile french establishments. by cl. 5 of that numberification all laws in force in the
french establishments or any part thereof immediately before
the companymencement of the order and number repealed by cl. 6 of
the french establishments  application of laws  order 1954
shall companytinue to remain in force until repealed or amended
by a companypetent authority. the law if any relating to the
import of goods into india applicable in the french
establishments prior to numberember 1 1954 stood expressly
repealed by cl. 3 of s. r. o. 3315 which provided that the
enactments specified in companyumn 3 of the schedule as in force
before the companymencement of this order shall be applied to
and shall be in force in the french establishments subject
to  a  any amendments to which the enactments are for the
time being generally subject in the territories to which
they extend  b  the modifications if any specified in
column 4 of the schedule and  c  the subsequent provisions
of the order. by companyumn 3 of the schedule to this order
the sea customs act the reserve bank of india act and the
imports and exports trade  companytrol  act were expressly
applied to the french establishments and under the
provisions of these acts and numberifications issued thereunder
as from numberember 1 1954 numberperson companyld without a license
in that behalf import goods of the nature indented by the
petitioners. by cl. 6 it was enacted that unless
otherwise specifically provided in the schedule all laws in
force in the french establishments immediately before the
commencement of this order which companyrespond to the
enactments specified in the schedule shall cease to have
effect save as respects things done or omitted to be done
before such companymencement . the sea customs act and the
imports and exports trade  companytrol  act were expressly made
applicable to the french establishment of
pondicherry and all companyresponding law in that territory
ceased to have effect save as respects things done or
omitted to be done before such companymencement. clause 6 does
number authorise the doing of things expressly forbidden by the
provisions of the acts made applicable by schedule 3 in the
pondicherry establishment and by the use of the expression
things done or omitted to be done in the clause to the
rights or legal companysequences which may but for the
application of the enactments specified in schedule 3 have
flown from the acts done or omitted to be done the french
law does number companytinue to apply. the clause undoubtedly
protects french laws which companyrespond to the enactments
specified in schedule 3 in so far as they companycern things
done or omitted to be done before the companymencement of s r.
o. 3315. in superseding the french law in force on the
prescribed date the cl. 6 emphasises that the enactments
specified in schedule 3 have numberretrospective operation and
as companynterpart thereof provides that all transactions which
have been companycluded before numberember 1 1954 will companytinue
to be govered by the french law numberwithstanding the
enactment of the acts specified. since the date of the de facto transfer of the french
establishments to the indian union all imports of goods
across the customs frontier at pondicherry were subject to
the provisions of the sea customs act and the imports and
exports trade  companytrol  act and goods shipped after
numberember 1 1954 in pursuance of indents before that date
were number expressly saved from the operation of the
restrictive provisions of those acts. on and from numberember
1 1954 the law if any relating to the import of goods
operative in the french territory was superseded and the
goods having been brought into the pondicherry port after
numberember 1 1954 the import was governed by the sea customs
act and the imports and exports trade  companytrol  act and number
by any law of the french territory. the supersession of the
french laws by the application of the statutes set out in
schedule iii was on numberember 1 1954 companyplete save as
respects things done or omitted to be done . does the
expression things done include companysequences which may
have ensued in future but for the supervention of the merger
agreement ? ex facie by cl. 6 the french law is kept alive
in respect of things done or omitted to be done i.e. things done or omitted to be done in the past it has number
the effect of keeping alive that law in respect of things to
be done or omitted to be done in future. all transactions
completed after numberember 1 1954 will on the plain words
of cl. 6 be governed by the statutes made applicable by
virtue of cl. 3 of s. r. o. 3315.
section 6 of the general clauses act 1897 has in terms no
application when the companyrt is called upon to ascertain the
effect of supersession of french law by the application of
the specified statutes by cl. 6 of s. r. o. 3315. in terms
s. 6 of the general clauses act applies to the effect of
repeal of enactments of the indian legislature and there is
numberhing in s. r. o. 3315 which supports the plea that the
section applies as if the french law in operation before
merger of the french establishments is to be regarded as a
statute enacted by the indian legislature. in that premise
it is difficult to appreciate how the principle of cases
decided by the companyrts in england on the words of s. 38 of
the interpretation act 1889  52 and 53 viet. ch. 63  which
are substantially the same as those used in s. 6 of the
general clauses act 1897 can lend any assistance in
interpreting the meaning of the expression things done or
omitted to be done in cl. 6 of s. r. o. 3315. by enacting

r. o. 3315 the french law after its supersession has number
been expressly kept alive in respect of any right or
privilege acquired or accrued under the things done under
that law and it would be an unwarranted incursion into the
field of legislation to attempt to extend the protection of
that law to transactions which have taken place after the
prescribed date relying upon the general clauses act. number is the interrelation between the agreement of purchase
with a foreign seller and the various processes leading to
the delivery of goods to a companymon carrier and the ultimate
import of goods sufficient to include within the expression
things done used in
cl. 6 of s. r. o. 3315 companysequences of the things done which
may ensue in future. within the expression in the
course of import of the goods into the territory of india
used in art. 286 1   b  of the companystitution a series of
integrated activities resulting in the taking of goods
across the customs frontier may be involved. but import as
defined in the imports and exports trade  companytrol  act is
bringing a companymodity in the territory of india preliminary
steps even if they are closely integrated therewith are number
included in that definition. if steps preliminary to import
are number included in the companycept of import in dealing with
the provisions of the sea customs act and the imports and
exports trade  companytrol  act it would be difficult to afford
protection of the french laws expressly granted by virtue of
cl. 6 of s. r. o. 3315 to such of the preliminary steps as
have taken place before the prescribed date and to create
an exemption in favour of imports companysequential upon those
preliminary steps which the legislature has declined to do. in my view therefore by the use of the expression things
done or omitted to be done before such companymencement in cl. 6 of s. r. o. 3315 french law applies to acts and omissions
before numberember 1 1954 and number to legal companysequences of
those acts and omissions ensuing after that date and hence
import of goods across the customs frontier in the
pondicherry port after numberember 1 1954 without a licence
in that behalf is companytrary to the provisions of the sea
customs act and the imports and exports trade  companytrol  act. the provisions of the sea customs act and the imports and
exports trade  companytrol  act whereby restrictions are imposed
upon the import and export of goods are number by themselves
unreasonable. if the petitioners are number entitled to the
benefit of cl. 6 of the indo-french agreement there is no
other ground on which they can successfully impugn the
validity of the orders imposing duty and penalty. i am therefore of the view that this petition should be
dismissed with companyts.