2007 (5) TMI 240 - SC - Customs

Permission to Export - Respondent was granted a license/authorization to export Sandal Wood Oil as far back as in 1996. The goods, however, were not exported within the time stipulated. The Central Government in its EXIM policy for the years 2002-2007 took a policy decision that the license / certificate / permission could be revalidated on merit by the Licensing Authority only for a period of six months and not beyond twelve months reckoned from the date of expiry of the validity period High court held that the export of Sandal Wood Oil sought to be made by the petitioner was a prohibited item as but, when license was granted it was not a prohibited item. Even under the new policy, DGFT has got power to give relaxation. Therefore, DGFT directed to reconsider the application of extension of authorization Supreme Court disagreed with the views of HC and allowed the appeal of the DGFT

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the license for exporting Sandal Wood Oil.
2. Extension of time for fulfilling export obligations.
3. Interpretation of Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Judicial authority to direct consideration of extension despite policy prohibition.

Analysis:
1. The respondent was granted a license to export Sandal Wood Oil in 1996, but failed to export within the stipulated time. Subsequently, permission was granted again in 2002, with a validity period of six months. Despite extensions, the respondent did not fulfill the export obligation, leading to a dismissal of further extension requests by the competent authority.

2. The High Court, in response to a writ petition, directed the Director General of Foreign Trade to consider the respondent's case for a one-time export due to the prior license and materials procurement. However, the Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, in light of a previous judgment, emphasizing the distinction between regulation and prohibition in trade policies.

3. Referring to the judgment in Union of India v. Asian Food Industries, the Court highlighted the difference between regulation and prohibition, stating that the terms are to be applied differently based on the specific circumstances. The Court concluded that the High Court's direction to consider the extension request was not in line with Section 51 of the Customs Act, leading to the setting aside of the impugned judgment.

4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision. The Court clarified that the High Court could not issue the direction for extension contrary to the policy prohibition. The judgment did not delve into the respondent's rights under a new policy of the Central Government, maintaining focus on the legal interpretation of the Customs Act and trade regulations.