|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1989) 3A CLR 981
1989 August 11
[DEMETRIAIDES, J.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION
REMIA FOODS LTD.,
Applicants,
v.
THE DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE AND ANOTHER,
Respondents.
(Case No. 267/88)
Reasoning of an administrative act - Sub judice decision may he upheld by the Court on the basis of lawful reasoning different from the one given.
In this case the importation of goods containing "nitrous oxide" is prohibited by Law. However, when the respondent dealt a second time with an application for the importation of such goods, he invoked as a reason for rejection of the importation the fact that the day of their use had expired. Applicants pointed out that simply it was indicated 'best for use before...". The Court upheld the decision on the ground that in an event the importation was prohibited as the goods contain nitrous oxide.
Recourse dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Case referred to:
Anthoupolis Ltd. and Another v. Republic (1980) 3 C.L.R. 296.
Recourse.
Recourse against the decision of the respondents by which the applicants were prevented from clearing from customs goods.
A. Poetis, for the Applicants.
D. Papadopoulou (Mrs), Counsel of the Republic B, for the Respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
DEMETRIADES, J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicants pray for a declaration that the decision of respondent No. 1 and/or respondent No.2, which was communicated to them by letter of the first respondent dated the 9th February, 1988, and by which the applicants were prevented from clearing from customs goods, is null and void and of no legal effect.
The applicants are importers of food stuff and similar goods.
On the 29th June, 1987, the applicants submitted the necessary documents for the clearance of six pallets containing 7200 tins of dairy cream. As it appeared, however, that one of the ingredients of the contents of these tins was "nitrous oxide", a substance the importation of which is prohibited by the Miscellaneous Food Additives Regulations 1983 - 1986 under Not. Nos. 298/83 and 58/86, clearance of the said goods was refused and the applicants were informed accordingly. As a result, on the 30th June, 1987, the clearing agents of the applicants wrote a letter to the Senior Collector of Customs at Limassol, requesting permission for the removal of the goods to a bonded warehouse, pending re-exportation.
On the 30th September, 1987, the applicants addressed a letter to the Minister of Health, by which they requested the amendment of the regulations prohibiting the importation of foodstuffs containing "nitrous oxide". On the 11th January 1988, a letter was addressed on behalf of the Director of Medical and Public Health Services of the Ministry of Health to Health Inspectors, copy of which was sent to the Association of Importers of food stuff, by which they were informed that the Scientific Committee for Foodstuffs had decided to suggest the amendment of the relevant regulations so that the importation of dairy creams containing nitrous oxide be permitted and that, in view of this, the clearance of goods containing this substance and which were in store in bonded warehouses, he permitted.
No recourse was filed against the refusal of the respondents to allow the clearance of the goods, on the ground that it contained the said substance.
On the 18th January, 1988, apparently as a result of the contents of the letter of the 11th January, 1988, a new application for the clearance of the goods was deposited with the Customs Authorities but again their clearance was refused, this time on the ground that the date of their use had expired. Against this decision the applicants filed the present recourse.
The applicants submitted that the respondents acted under a misconception of fact in that there was no expiry date for the use of the goods but what was written on them were the words "best for use before ." which words, they allege, do not mean that the date was the last date for their use but it means that the goods can be used and after that date but the words give warning that they may be of lower quality.
Administrative decisions valid in law for some other reasoning than the one given by their author can be judicially upheld on the basis of other lawful reasoning. In support of this principle, reference may be made to Anthoupolis Ltd. & Another v. The Republic (1980) 3 C.L.R. 296, at p. 303, per A. Loizou J. (as he then was).
In the present case, the importation of goods containing "nitrous oxide" is prohibited by law and this fact was a good reason for the authorities to refuse the clearance of the goods. In the result, this recourse fails and is dismissed but, in the circumstances, I make no order as to costs.
Recourse dismissed. No order as
to costs.