Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2013 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 359 - HC - CustomsGrant of Value based license or quantity based license - Change in policy after filing application for grant of licence - appellants contention that as all the requirements had been satisfied by them long time back, they should be issued only value based licences and not quantity based licences. - Held that - power to exempt includes the power to modify or withdraw that benefit; and the liability to pay duty under the Customs Act, 1962 arises when the taxable event occurs being subject to payment of duty as prevalent on the date of the entry of the goods. In Kasinka Trading 1994 (10) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , it was held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked to question the withdrawal of notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 when it was done in public interest. Equities have to be balanced and public interest must outweigh individual interest. There is also no contradiction between paras 48 and 66 of the Export and Import Policy during the period the appellants had applied for grant of advance licences. From a reading of paras 48 and 66 of the Export and Import Policy, as in vogue during the period appellants had applied for advance licences, this Court is of the view that respondent was bound to issue advance licences only in accordance with the policy in force on the date of issuance of licences. Reason for long period of 16 years taken for final judicial pronouncement - all parties to litigation as well as all counsel are under a duty to place on record true, complete and correct facts. If material facts like relevant paras of the export and import policy are suppressed, distorted, withheld or not placed either intentionally or unintentionally, the writ courts would find it difficult to dispense justice expeditiously - if correct para 66 of the Export and Import Policy during the period 1992 to 1997 had been brought to the notice of this Court at the earliest, rather than at the stage of final hearing before the Division Bench, the present proceedings would not have lasted for nearly sixteen years - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the dismissal of the writ petition. 2. Entitlement to value-based duty-free licenses. 3. Impact of policy changes on the issuance of licenses. 4. Applicability of specific provisions of the Export and Import Policy. 5. Alleged delay in processing applications by the respondent. 6. Legal principles regarding vested rights and retrospective application of policy changes. 7. Procedural compliance by the licensing authority. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Dismissal of the Writ Petition: The appellants filed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 13th October 2004, wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed their writ petition (C.W.P. No. 300/1997). The Single Judge held that the appellants had no vested right to import licenses based on the policy in force at the time of application, as the granting of licenses depends on the policy prevailing at the time of issuance. 2. Entitlement to Value-Based Duty-Free Licenses: The appellants, exporters of Mulberry raw silk garments, applied for value-based duty-free licenses between 29th June 1992 and 12th August 1993. They argued that they were entitled to value-based licenses under the Export and Import Policy in force at the time of their application. The appellants contended that all discrepancies in their applications were resolved by 3rd August 1993. 3. Impact of Policy Changes on the Issuance of Licenses: On 20th August 1993, the policy changed, discontinuing value-based licenses for silk exports and introducing quantity-based licenses. The respondent advised the appellants to furnish revised applications for quantity-based licenses, which the appellants contested, insisting on value-based licenses. The respondent issued quantity-based licenses on 25th November 1994, which the appellants returned, requesting value-based licenses instead. 4. Applicability of Specific Provisions of the Export and Import Policy: The appellants relied on para 66 of the Export and Import Policy (1992-1997), which they interpreted as entitling them to value-based licenses based on the norms in force at the date of application receipt. They distinguished this from para 48, which dealt with advance licenses in anticipation of exports. The appellants argued that para 66 applied to their case, as they had already made partial or full exports. 5. Alleged Delay in Processing Applications by the Respondent: The appellants claimed that the respondent's negligence and omission in processing their applications resulted in the denial of their entitlement to value-based licenses. They cited paras 109D and 258 of the Handbook of Procedure, which mandated the issuance of licenses within five days if the applications were complete. The appellants argued that the respondent's delay was unjustified, as no discrepancies were pointed out after 3rd August 1993. 6. Legal Principles Regarding Vested Rights and Retrospective Application of Policy Changes: The appellants argued that their right to value-based licenses, accrued under the earlier policy, could not be taken away by the subsequent policy change on 20th August 1993. They relied on the judgment in G.D. Impex International (India) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., which held that a vested right under an earlier policy could not be retrospectively affected by a policy change. However, the respondent countered that para 66, as relied upon by the appellants, was prospectively introduced on 8th February 1994 and was not applicable during the appellants' application period. 7. Procedural Compliance by the Licensing Authority: The respondent argued that para 66 in force during the appellants' application period stipulated that licenses would be issued according to the policy in force at the time of issuance. They contended that the delay in processing applications was due to the appellants' failure to furnish necessary details. The respondent also emphasized that paras 109D and 258 were directory, not mandatory, as no consequences were prescribed for non-compliance. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the appellants' reliance on the amended para 66 was misplaced, as it was introduced after the policy change discontinuing value-based licenses. The Court upheld the respondent's decision to issue quantity-based licenses, affirming that the policy in force at the time of license issuance was applicable. The appeal was dismissed, with an emphasis on the duty of parties to present complete and accurate facts to avoid prolonged litigation.
|