1987 (8) TMI 106 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Revalidation and endorsement of imprest licence.
2. Compliance with the court's order on endorsement.
3. Validity of import licence for specific items under current policy.
4. Interpretation of "specifically banned" items.
5. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments to imprest licences.
6. Distinction between imprest licences and additional licences.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Revalidation and Endorsement of Imprest Licence:
The Petitioners had an imprest licence under AM 82-83 for importing uncut and unset diamonds. After fulfilling their export obligations, they sought revalidation of the licence for six months to import OGL items as per para 185(4) of the AM 82-83 policy. The Respondents initially refused to make this endorsement, prompting the Petitioners to file a writ petition. The court directed the Respondents to revalidate the licence and endorse it for importing OGL items, excluding specifically banned items under the current policy. The endorsement was to be non-transferable.

2. Compliance with Court's Order on Endorsement:
The Respondents' initial endorsement did not comply with the court's order, leading to a contempt motion. Eventually, the Respondents made the correct endorsement as per the court's directive. However, the court held the Respondents in contempt for their initial non-compliance and imposed a punishment, which was stayed pending an appeal in the Supreme Court.

3. Validity of Import Licence for Specific Items under Current Policy:
The Petitioners imported marble slabs under the revalidated licence, but the Respondents issued a show cause notice challenging the validity of the licence for these items. The notice cited Sec. 111(d), (l), and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 3 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Respondents argued that the imported items were specifically banned under the current policy, referencing various Supreme Court judgments.

4. Interpretation of "Specifically Banned" Items:
The court had to interpret what "specifically banned" meant in the context of the endorsement. The Petitioners argued that the term should only include items banned in specie, while the Respondents and Supreme Court judgments suggested a broader interpretation, including restricted and limited permissible items. The court noted that the Supreme Court had consistently held that items must be importable under both the earlier and current policies.

5. Applicability of Supreme Court Judgments to Imprest Licences:
The Petitioners contended that the Supreme Court judgments related to additional licences and should not apply to imprest licences, which have different conditions and requirements. However, the court found that the principle of requiring compliance with both the earlier and current policies applied universally, regardless of the type of licence.

6. Distinction Between Imprest Licences and Additional Licences:
The Petitioners highlighted differences between imprest and additional licences, arguing that the former should not be subject to the same restrictions as the latter. The court acknowledged these differences but maintained that the fundamental requirement of compliance with the current policy applied to all types of licences.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Petitioners could not import items not permitted under the current policy, even if they were allowed under the earlier policy. The show cause notice issued by the Respondents was upheld, and the petition was dismissed. The court ordered the status quo to continue for four weeks, allowing the Petitioners time to seek further relief.