(1988)1988June6 [SAWIDES.J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION ANDREASNICOLAOU, Applicant, v. 1.THEMINISTEROFCOMMERCEANDINDUSTRY, 2. THEREPUBLICOFCUPRUS,THROUGH THEATTORNEY-GENERAL, Respondents. (CaseNo. 89/87). Executorty act—Confirmatory act—Refusing application to import goods— Letter ofprotest and,eventualfilingofnewapplicationfor theimportation of the same goods—New refusal on the same grounds asbefore—Such new refusal is confirmatory of thefirstrefusal—Therefore, it cannot be challengedbyarecourse. 5 Constitutional Law—Right to exercise trade—Constitution, Art. 25— Restrictions in the importation ofgoods—Law 49/1962, as amended by Law 7/67,section2—Solongas the restrictionsareimposedinthepublic interest orfor any otherobject mentionedinpara. 2 thereof, theyare not unconstitutional. 10 ConstitutionalLaw—Taxation—Constitution,Art.24—Restrictionsontheimportation ofgoods—Art. 24irrelevant. . ConstitutionalLaw—Equality—Constitution,Art.28—Restrictionsonimportation ofgoods—Failure toprove thatlicencesfor importationofsimilar goods havebeengiven duringthesameperiod—Complaintfor discimina- 15 Honturneddown. Therecourseinthiscasewasdirectedagainstarefusal topermitapplicanttoimportaquantityof Athletic shoesfromabroad. Indismissing the 1174 3 C.L.R. Nicolaou v. Republic recourse,theCourtexpoundedthelegalprincipleshereinaboveindicated. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: SofoclidesandCo.Ltd. v.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.1302; 5 MeridianTradingCo.Ltd. v.TheRepublic
(1988)3CLA. 1073; ImpalexAgenciesv. TheRepublic
(1970)3CL.R. 361; lacovidesv.TheRepublic
(1966)3CL.R.212. Recourse. 10 Recourseagainsttherefusal of therespondents tograntapplicantalicencetoimport50dozenofathleticshoes. Chr.Taramountas,for applicant P. Clerides,for respondents. Cur. adv. vult. 1 15 20 25 SAWIDES J. read thefollowing judgment. By thisrecourse theapplicantchallengesthedecisionofrespondent 1communicatedtohim by letterdated 2ndDecember, 1986refusing the grant ofalicencetoimportintoCyprus50dozenofathleticshoes. The legal grounds on which therecourse is based are briefly that Law 49/62, as amended by Law 7/67, on which the subjudice decision was based, violates Articles 23,24, 25 and 26 of the Constitution; that theregulations are ultravires the law; that thesubjudicedecisionamountstoanunreasonable discrimination inviolation ofArticle 28of theConstitution; andthatthesubjudicedecision isunreasonable and unjustified. 1175 Sawides J. Nicolaouv.Republic
(1988)Thefactsofthecasearebrieflyasfollows: Theapplicant is abusiness man operatingan athletic goods shopandisalsoanimporterofathleticgoods. Respondent 1relyingons.3oftheImports(Regulation)Law, 1962(Law49/62)asamendedbyLaw7/67,issuedanorderpub- 5 lishedinSupplementNo.3totheofficial GazetteoftheRepublic,dated20thJanuary, 1983, underNotification 7/83,whereby theimportationofshoesfalling withinthecustomsclassification 64.01-64.05wasplaced undercontrolandassuchfortheirimportationanimportlicenceisrequired. 10 Theapplicantin 1985submittedanapplicationforanimportlicencefor 50dozenof athleticshoesKM-211fromChina.His applicationwas refused. Asaresulthewrotealetterprotestingtosuchrefusal andrequestingreconsiderationofthedecision.Atthesametimehesub- 15 mittedanewapplicationon 18thJuly, 1986whichwasagainrefused onthegroundofprotectionoflocalindustry. Theapplicantprotestedonceagainfortherefusal andsubmittedanotherapplicationdated 1stDecember, 1986forexactlythe .same goods as mentioned in hisprevious application of 18th 20 July, 1986whichwasagainrefused on2ndDecember, 1986,on thegroundofprotectionofthelocalindustry.Asaresultapplicantfiledthepresentrecourse. By his written address counsel for applicant contended that Law49/62asamendedbyLaw7/67 totheextentthatit allows 25 theimpositionofrestrictionsontheimportationofathleticshoes ofthetypeappliedforbytheapplicantaswellastheOrderissued by therespondentinpursuanceof thepowersvestedinhimby the said law are unconstitutional asviolating Article 24 of the Constitution which onlyempowers theimposition of taxes and 35 notabsoluterestrictionsontheimportation.Hefurther contended tHatArticle 25does notempower the Minister toimpose such 1176 3 C.L.R. 5 ΙΟ 15 2o 25 30 . Nicolaou v. Republic SawidesJ. conditionsandfurthermorehecontendedthatthefact thatsimilar importlicences weregiventootherimporters amountstoadis criminationagainst theapplicantinviolation ofArticle28ofthe Constitution.Hebased hisargumentastotheviolation ofArticle 28onthefact thatinJune, 1987 heboughtfromanothercompa ny 108pairsof similar shoeswhichwereimportedfromChina. Iwishtostateatthispointthattheallegation of the applicant thatinJune, 1987,hebought similar shoesfromanothercompa ny which might have been importedin 1987 is irrelevant to the presentcaseas thecasehastobeconsideredonthefacts prevail ingatthetimewhenthesubjudicedecisionwas taken,suchdate beingbefore 1987. Counsel for respondents ontheotherhand,raised aprelimi nary objection thatthesubjudice decision is confirmatory of a previous decision of the respondent which was given in July, 1986 when applicant applied for a importlicence for thesame goodsfrom China.As such,counselsubmitted,itisnotofanex ecutory natureandinanyevent theapplicantfailed tochallenge thedecisionofJuly, 1986,in time. Counselfurther submittedthatthesubjudicedecisiondoes not comewithin thepurview of Article 24,andtherehasnotbeena violationofArticle25. Counsel further rejected theallegations of theapplicantthat duringthematerialtimeanyimportlicencewas giventoanybody elseandargued thatinanyeventthe applicanthasfailed toprove that thegoods inrespect of which heallegesthata licence was givenwereidenticaltothoseappliedfor byhim. Counselsubmittedthat thesubjudicedecision was takeninthe properexerciseby respondent 1 of hisdiscretion andfor the object,as statedtherein,of theprotectionof localindustry. Ishalldealfirstwiththepreliminary objection raised.by coun-· sel forrespondents. 1177 SawidesJ. Nicolaouv. Republic
(1988)Asearlier statedtheapplicanton 18thJuly, 1986applied for the importation of exactly the same goods of the same value, whichapplication wasrefused byrespondent 1.Theapplicantinsteadofchallengingsuchdecisionwithinthetimelimitprovided by the Constitution wrotealetter protesting against therefusal 5 andhefiledanewapplicationon 1stDecember, 1986,fortheimportation of thesamegoodswhich wasrefused onthe 2ndDecember, 1986byrepetitionofthesamereasonsasthosegivenby respondent 1in refusing applicant's application of 18th July, 1986. InthecircumstancesofthepresentcaseIaminclinedtoagree with counsel for therespondents that the subjudice decision is merelyconfirmatory ofthepreviousdecisionwhichhadnotbeen challengedbyhim.Theapplicanthavingfailed tofilearecourse thoughtfitthathecouldovercometheprovisionsofthe.Constitu- * tionbyputtinginanewapplicationinrespectofthesamesubject mattersoonafter theperiodforfillingarecourseagainstthedecision had expired. Therefore, the recourse should fail on this ground. Notwithstanding myabovefindingI shallproceedtoexamine ~ therecourseonitsmerits. Sub-section
(1)ofsection3ofLaw49/62asreplacedbysection 2oftheLaw7/67empowerstheMinisterofCommerceand Industry wheneveritbecomesnecessaryinthepublicinterestto restrictandregulatetheimportation ofgoodsfortheencourage- « ment,interalia,oflocalproduction andindustry,byOrderpublishedin theofficial GazetteoftheRepublic. Byvirtueof such powerstheMinisterissuedanOrderpublishedintheofficial Gazetteof theRepublic dated20thJanuary, 1983,under Notification 7/83 restricting and regulating the importation of certain goodssetoutintheschedulethereinincludedforreasonsofpublicinterest.Amongstthegoodssorestricted wereshoes. Thequestion as.towhethertheimportation ofrestrictionson importationviolatesArticle25oftheConstitutionwasconsidered 1178 j, 3C.L.R. 5 JQ 25 Nicolaouv.Republic SawidesJ. bymeinSofoclides andCo.Ltd. v.(I) TheMinister ofCommerceandIndustry,
(2)TheRepublicofCyprusthroughtheAttorney-General
(1986)3C.L.R.1302atpp. 1312-1316andreiteratedinthecaseofMeridianTrading Co.Ltd.andTheMinister ofCommerceandIndustry
(1988)3C.L.R.1073.1adoptwhatI saidinthosecasesaswellastherelevantdictainthejudgmentof A. Loizou,J. ashethenwas,inImpalexAgenciesv.TheRepublic
(1970)3C.L.R.361forthereasonsstatedtherein,thats.3of Law49/62,asamended, isconstitutionally valid solongasthe restrictionorregulationoftheimportationofgoodsismade,asit isthecaseunderconsideration, inthepublicinterestorforany otheroftheobjects setoutinthesaidsection i.e.theencouragementof localproduction and manufacture, theimprovementof thebalanceoftrade,compliancewithinternationalobligationsand thedevelopmentoftheeconomyoftheRepublic,allbeingobjects for bringingitwithin theambitofparagraph2ofArticle25,the very termsof whichrenderitmanifestly aprovisionoflawnecessaryinthepublicinterest. Article24onwhichcounselforapplicantsoughttorelyhasno bearingatallinthepresentcase.Itisaprovisionempoweringthe impositionoftaxesanditcannotbeconstrued asauthorizingthe unrestrictedimportationof gooodssubject onlytoarightofimposition of high taxes.Aconstruction in the way submittedby counselfor applicant wouldhaveledtoanabsurdity andwould havebeen contrary to theclear and unambiguous provision of suchArticle. Icomenexttoconsiderwhethertherehasbeenaviolationof Article28oftheConstitution. Noevidencehasbeenadducedbytheapplicantinsupportof ·*" hisallegationthatapermitfortheimportofsimilarproductsatthe materialtimehadbeen granted and,therefore, hisallegationof discrimination in violation of Article28isuntenable.Astohis original ground of lawwhich appearsinsupportof hisapplicationthatthesubjudicedecisionwasbasedonregulationswhich 35 areultraviresthelawnoargumenthasbeenadvancedbycounsel 1179 SawidesJ.
(1988)Nicolaou v. Republic in his written address and no explanation in support of such ground. It may be, therefore, presumed that such ground has beenabandoned. Applicanthasfailedtosatisfy theCourtthattherestrictionwas notaimedatthepurposeofprotectionoflocalproductsandtheir 5 marketingintheinterestsofthecountryasawholeandthatitwas arbitrarilyimposedbytheMinisterofCommerceandIndustry. It hasbeenrepeatedly stressedthattheCourtwillnotinterfere by substitutingitsowndiscretionforthatoftheadministrationeven iftheCourtwouldhavereachedadifferent conclusion(lacovides JQ v.TheRepublic
(1966)3C.L.R.212). Inthecircumstancesof thepresentcaseIfindthattherestrictions imposedbyrespondent lwerewithintheambitofparagraph 2ofArticle25andtheydonotviolateanyArticleoftheConstitutionandthatthediscretionoftherespondentwasproperlyexer- 15 cised and no case has been made out for interference by this Courtintheexerciseofhisdiscretion. Intheresulttherecoursefailsandisherebydismissedwithno orderforcosts. Recoursedismissed. 20 Noorderasto costs. 1180