JUDGMENT 1. AFTER hearing the eleborate arguments advanced by Mr. Ray learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in respect of the prayer for further interim order in terms of prayers (d) and (e) and also the arguments advanced by Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, I am not inclined to make any further interim order besides what has been granted by this court at the time of issuing the rules for the reasons stated. hereinbelow. 2. THE subject-matter of challenge in these writ applications is a notice, annexure A, issued by the Deputy Chief controller of Imports and Exports on 8th September, 1983 under Clause 10 (e)of the Import and Export Control Order, 1955 directing the petitioner to show cause why he will not be directed to sell the soyabean oil imported by him to the State Trading Corporation and a certain time has been granted. Reason for such notice has been stated in para 4 of the said notice that the Dy. Chief controller of Imports and Exports was of the view that the imported material should not be used for the purpose for which the import has been made by. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that since there has already been a determination by the Customs authorities that soyabean oil of the variety not edible do not fall under the restrictive clause of the import policy prevalent during the year 1980-81 and it has also been found by the customs authorities that in similar matters it has been held by the Board that such type of non-edible oil did not come within the mischief of the import policy permitting such import of soya-bean oil by any other agency except by the State Trading Corporation. The customs authorities therefore directed for release of the goods on payment of certain sums of customs duty and regarding the difference of duties, there was a further challenge before this Court and the court directed release of the goods on certain terms which the petitioner has complied with and in fact part of the goods were released. But subsequently the Impugned notice, annexure A, has been issued by the Dy. Chief Controller, Import and export as stated hereinbefore. It has been urged by Mr. But subsequently the Impugned notice, annexure A, has been issued by the Dy. Chief Controller, Import and export as stated hereinbefore. It has been urged by Mr. Roy in support of the Writ application that after the determination by the Customs authorities that the goods were imported under the import license issued by the Import and Export Controller, it is not within the purview of the Import and Export controller to make any order contrary to the order of the Customs authorities opining that it does not cover under the import license issued. Because Mr. Ray referring to the Note-book of Import and Export procedure, paragraphs 32-35 has stated that the final decision in such matters lay with the Customs authorities and as such it was beyond the jurisdiction of the import and Export Controller to pass an order contrary to the order of the Customs authority. In support of the submissions, Mr. Roy has cited at the Bar several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of the Madras High Court. It has been further submitted by Mr. Roy that clause 10 (e) of the Import and Export Control order, 1955 is not applicable as there is no whisper in the impugned notice that the goods imported cannot be used by the importer for the purpose for which it was imported and as such the notice is not a proper notice as envisaged under clause 10 (c) of the Import and Export Control order. It is therefore submitted that this notice should not be allowed to be given effect to and since the petitioner is recurring damages of a huge amount as the goods are lying in the port, a proper interim order should be made to enable the petitioner to have the goods released and to transport them for sale to the various parties. It has also been submitted by Mr. It has also been submitted by Mr. Roy in this connection that there is specific provision for appeal under, section 129 (A)and also a suo motu provision for calling for the records and after considering the same for sending the same to the appellate authority under the customs Act ( section 129 (D) ) and as such the impugned notice of the Import and Export Controller is also illegal inasmuch as in view of the statutory remedy provided for it would have been fit and proper for the Import and Export Controller to avail of that statutory remedy by preferring an appeal before the Board for appropriate order in this matter. 3. MR. Roy Choudhury appearing on behalf of the Union of India has drawn the attention of the Court to the Import policy of 1981-82 where it has been specifically mentioned that certain items mentioned therein including soyabean oil seeds edible or non-edible will be imported only by the state Trading Corporation of India under license on the basis of the foreign exchange released by the Government in its favour. It has also been submitted that in view of this policy, the Dy. Chief Controller of Import and Export being satisfied that the goods imported should not be used for the purpose for which it has been imported issued the impugned notice as mentioned in annexure A to the petition. It has further been submitted by Mr. Roy Choudhury that in the import policy which was made in 1380-81 and which has been placed before this Court by Mr. Roy, though there is no specific mention of edible or non-edible yet there is specific mention of soyabean oil which is to be imported by the state Trading Corporation of India. Mr. Roy Choudhury that in the import policy which was made in 1380-81 and which has been placed before this Court by Mr. Roy, though there is no specific mention of edible or non-edible yet there is specific mention of soyabean oil which is to be imported by the state Trading Corporation of India. Mr. Roy Choudhury submitted that the finding by the Board of Customs is not a proper finding and as such an appeal is going to be preferred on behalf of the Customs before the appellate authority in this matter it has been further submitted in this connection that if the goods imported are allowed to be released, then it will have the effect Of nullifying the import policy of the government and further interim order if made as prayed for will amount to making the Rule absolute inasmuch as the goods will have to be released and it will be sold to different parties and there will be no way out for recovery of the goods if it is ultimately found that the notice issued by the Dy. Chief Controller of Import and export is not bad. 4. AFTER hearing the learned Advocates for both the parties and on a careful scrutiny of the Export and Import Control Order as well as the averments made in the writ application, I do not find any scope for issuing further interim order because the notice that has been issued under clause 10 (c) does not purport to question the legality or validity of the importation of the goods into this country. In that view of the matter the decisions that have been cited at the Bar by Mr. Roy on behalf of the petitioners is of no avail. The only pertinent question requires to be considered is whether the notice, annexure A, is a notice which can be issued by the Dy. Chief controller under clause 10 (c) of the Import and Export Control Order, 1955. It appears on a plain reading of the provisions of the said clause which has been quoted in the petition in para 4 that if the Deputy chief Controller of Import end Export is satisfied that the good will not be used or should not be used for the purpose for which it has been imported, then he can issue such a show-cause, notice in terms as mentioned in annexure 'a'. In this circumstances, at this preliminary stage, I do not deem it just and proper to pass any further interim order. Moreover, as the impugned notice is only a notice to show cause, it does not create any prejudice to the petitioners. The petitioners may show cause and if any order adverse to them is made, the petitioners can challenge that order. In that view of the matter, I am also not inclined to extend the interim order which has been granted by this Court at the time of issuance of the Rule any longer. The prayer for further interim order is thus disposed of. Affidavit -in -opposition is to be filed 'within a week after the reopening of the court after Puja holidays and reply thereto, a week thereafter. Liberty is given to the petitioners to mention the matters for fixing an early date of hearing after completion of affidavits.