clr/1988/1988_3_2197.pdf

(1988)Casesreferredto: GeorghiouandAnotherv.MunicipalityofNicosia

(1973)3 C.L.R. 53; loannouv.TheRepublic

(1982)3C.L.R. 380; HealthandDietCentrev.TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R.1529. Recourses. Recoursesagainstthedecisionsoftherespondentspermitting applicantstoimportonlyalimitednumberofgasheatersandimposingconditionsandlimitationontheimportation oftheabove gasheaters. K.TalarideswithP.Liveras,fortheapplicants. N.Charalambous,SeniorCounseloftheRepublic,for therespondents. Cur.adv. vult. PAPADOPOULOS J.read thefollowingjudgment. TheApplicants area well-known company in Cyprus which deals in a 15 numberofactivities.Oneofitsactivitieshasbeenthedealingsin gasheaters. By recourse 692/85 they seek a declaration of the Court wherebythedecisionoftheMinistryofCommerceandIndustry, dated28/6/85,permitting theapplicantstoimportonlyalimited 20 number of gas heaters

(1247),aspart of thequota for 1985,is nullandvoidandofnoeffect whatsoever. Byrecourse747/85theyseekadeclarationoftheCourttodeclareasnullandvoidthedecisionoftheDirectorofCustomsand Excise,dated20/6/85,wherebycertainlimitationsandconditions 25 wereimposedontheimportationofalimitednumberofgasheaters. 2198 3 CX.R. Domestica Ltd. v. Republic Papadopoulos J. As it transpires from thedocumentary evidence in thefileof this case, the question of gas heaters imports was a matter of greatconcern for theMinister of Commerce andIndustry.Like a number of other goodsitgaveaheadache tothe'Authorities. On 5. the one hand therewas the notion of free enterprise and onthe otherthedesireof protecting local industries. Inthiscontext Law 49/62was enacted which was aimed atfacilitating theMinisterto strike a balance at the opposing interests. More particularly, it gavetheMinister of Commerce andIndustry powersto regulate « theimportation of goods. Section 3

(3)reads as follows: "3-

(1)ToΥπουργικόν Συμβούλων δύναταιδι'αποφά­ σεως αυτού νακηρύξη ρυθμιζομένην την εν τηΔημοκρα­ τία εισαγωγήν οιωνδήποτε εμπορευμάτων, ίναενθαρρυν' θή η τοπική παράγωγη και βιομηχανία, βελτιωθή το εμπορικό ισοζύγιον, τηρηθώσιν οι διεθνείς υποχρεώσεις της Δημοκρατίας,ήαναπτυχθήήοικονομία τηςΔημοκρα­ τίας, νοουμένου ότι ητοιαύτηρύθμισις γίνεται εν τωδημοσίω συμφέροντι. 20 25

(2)Οσάκιςελήφθηαπόφασιςδυνάμειτουεδαφίου

(1)ο Υπουργός δύναται,εκάστοτε,διάΔιατάγματοςδημοσιευ­ ομένου εντη επισήμω εφημερίδι της Δημοκρατίας,να περιορίζη και ρυθμίζη την εισαγωγήν οιωνδήποτε, εν τω Διατάγματι ειδικώτερον καθοριζομένων,εμπορευμάτων, λαμβανομένων υπ' όψιν των κριτηρίων των αναφερομέ­ νων ειςτο εδάφιον

(1).

(3)ΠανΔιάταγμαδύναταινα εμπεριέχη τοιαύτας δευ­ τερεύουσας, επακόλουθουςκαι συμπληρωματικός διατά­ ξεις, ως ο Υπουργός ήθελέ'κρίνει αναγκαίας ήσκόπιμους διά την εφαρμογήν του Διατάγματος και άνευ επηρεα­ σμούτηςγενικότητος τηςπρομνησθείσης διατάξεως, παν τοιούτον Διάταγμα δύναταιναπρονοήτηνπροηγουμένην εκτουΥπουργού, παροχήναδείαςδιάτην εισαγωγήντων τοιούτωνεμπορευμάτων." Section 5of thesame Law is apparently aconsequence ofthe ν 2199 PapadopouIosJ. Domestica Ltd.v. Republic

(1988)provisions of s.3,above. Section5reads: "5.Απαγορεύεταιηεκτελώνισις εμπορευμάτων αναφο­ ρικούςπρος άτινα απαιτείται δυνάμειτωνδιατάξεωντου παρόντος Νόμουη έκδοσις αδείας μέχρις ου ητοιαύτη άδεια προσκομισθή εις τον αρμόδιονΤελωνειακόν Λει- 5 τουργόν." By virtue of theprovisions of the aboveLaw andthe powers vestedinhim,theMinisterof CommerceandIndustry issuedor­ ders for theregulation of imports specifying goods which could notbefreely imported. 10 By Order 327 dated 24/5/68, the Minister placed under his control - for importpurposes -various goods. Such goods could only be imported after apermit from theMinistry of Commerce andIndustry.With twoothernoticesof theMinister,dated 10/4/ 81 and 22/6/84,gas heaters as well as parts of gas heaters were 15 scheduled underthecontrol of the Minister inpursuance of the provisions of Law 49/62. Itis commonground thatnopermitwas neededfor the impor­ tation tosuch goods by manufacturers. Theconditionof theim­ portpermitwas imposed only onimporters not manufacturers. 20 Itis thecontentionof theApplicants thatthey weremanufac­ turers of gas heaters when the subjudice decision was taken by theMinisterof CommerceandIndustry andthe Customs Officer. It is the submission of the Applicants that in their capacity as manufacturers they did notfall under theprovisions of Law 49/ 25 62.They basetheir submission onthefact thatthey weregivena permittomanufacture gas heaters by theMinistry of Commerce andIndustryitself.This permit was communicated tothemby a letterfrom theMinistry dated 14/3/83.They further allegethatthe Ministry is estoppedfromclassifying theapplicants as importers 30 andnotmanufacturers, since theMinistry itself encouragedthem toextendtheiractivitiesfrommereimportingtomanufacturing. 2200 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 Domestica Ltd. v. Republic Papadopoulos J. There is no difficulty in pin-pointing the crucial question in theseproceedings:Thisistheclassification oftheapplicants aseither manufacturers or importers.If they aremere importers, they havetogothroughtheprocedureaslaiddown bytheMinistry for the allocation of a "quota" of gas heaters. If not, such procedure isnot necessary. The examination of the status of the applicants took many routes and voluminouscorrespondence. Ihave before me lengthy correspondence, a heap of documents and various suggestions, allegations and submissions. I shall'make an attempt to shorten the issues. Iconsider that my duty is toexamine whether itwas reasonablyopen totheMinisterof Commerce and Industry and theCustoms Officer to reach the decisions which are challenged with theserecourses. As Isaid earlier, once theapplicants wereclassified as manufacturers of gas heaters, no question of quota would arise (See Note 5in file 208/K dated 7/6/85). Also,according to section 11 of 03.34 of the4th Scheduleof Customs Law 18/78,nocustoms duty would be imposed for articles which are imported (for the useinthemanufacture of gasheaters). I do not think Ishall have to go into the correspondence and the reasons which compelled the Ministry to classify various products intovariouscategories for theimposition of conditions, customs,etc.Ithink thisisnotdisputed asit iswithin thepowers of theMinistry in the interest of the country. Whatisdisputed is thedecision of theMinistry regarding thestatusof theapplicants. Inexamining thiscase Ifound amost interesting pieceofevidenceregarding thestatusof theapplicants.TheMinisterhadappointed aspecial Technical Scientific Committee toexamine this matter and toreport tohim as towhether the applicants wereor not an industry in the sphere of gas heaters. This Committee in theirreport, dated 24/1/85,decided that theapplicants cannot in 2201 Papadopoulos J. Domestica Ltd. v. Republic

(1988)any way be classified as manufacturers. In fact, they only have machinery for the assembly and not for the manufacture of gas heaters. I think that this is a most important piece of evidence which gives light to the whole problem before me. There was a great dispute as tothis issue, buta specialized Scientific Commit- 5 tee has madeits enquiry andproduced its findings. Idonotthink that the Court can interfere with this finding. In fact, there has been no material at all, on.which the Court could find that this Committee acted in any way improperly. The Court cannot go into themerits of an administrative decision when such decision ,« is taken by a competent Technical Committee. (See Georghiou andAnother v. Municipality of Nicosia

(1973)3C.L.R. 53, 57: "This Court,in theexercise of its revisional jurisdiction, as an administrative Court,cannotgo intothemeritsof anadmin­ istrative decision regarding amatterof technical nature." .c Also, loannou v. The Republic

(1982)3 C.L.R. 380 and Health and Diet Centre v. Republic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 1529. Itis evident from theauthorities thattheCourtwill notcheck ordecide for or against adecision taken by aTechnicalCommittee. As totheallegation of theapplicants thattherespondents (Mini- 20 stry of CommerceandIndustry), areestopped from taking acon­ trary stand totheone that they have already taken,because they encouraged theapplicants toaltertheiractivities fromimportation tomanufacturing, Ifeel thatis has nomerit at all and there is no reason topursue it any further. The Ministry encouraged theap- ~ς plicants to proceed with the manufacture of gas heaters and the applicants proceeded to establish a unit for the assembly of gas heaters. Ifail to see how it has any bearing on the issue before me. On thebasis of what Ihave already said, Ifind thattheMinis- ™ try hasnotactedin any impropermannerandIfeel thatthey exer­ cised their discretion, as given to them by Law 49/62, reasona­ bly. 2202 3 C.L.R. Domestica Ltd v. Republic Papadopoulos J. In theresult, Ifind that it wasreasonably open to the administrativeorganstotakethesubjudice decision. Recoursesdismissed without anyorder as tocosts. Recourses dismissed. No orderastocosts. 2203