9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of revalidation application for import license under changed import and export policy. 2. Entitlement of respondents for revalidation and endorsement for the import of OGL items on their imprest license. 3. Timeliness of revalidation application under the Import and Export policy of 1982-83. 4. Applicability of paragraph 185(7) of the Import & Export Policy 1982-83 on the relief sought in the petition. Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Bombay, delivered by Justice Kurdukar, pertains to an appeal against an order made by a single Judge, Pendse, J., in Writ Petition No. 1465 of 1984. The respondents, a partnership firm engaged in exporting diamonds and recognized as an export house, applied for an import license under the import and export policies of 1982-83. An imprest license was granted to the respondents for the import of uncut diamonds, and they fulfilled the export obligation, receiving a redemption certificate. Subsequently, they applied for revalidation of the license, which was rejected by the authorities due to the change in the import and export policy for the year 1983-84. The primary issue addressed was the validity of the revalidation application made by the respondents under the changed import and export policy. The appellants argued that the imprest license had expired with the policy period, justifying the rejection of revalidation. However, the Court held that since the respondents had fulfilled their obligations and obtained a redemption certificate, they were entitled to revalidation and endorsement for the import of OGL items on their license. The Court rejected the argument that revalidation should have been sought before the expiry of the previous policy period. Another contention raised was regarding the applicability of paragraph 185(7) of the Import & Export Policy 1982-83, which the appellants claimed would disentitle the respondents from relief. The Court noted that this argument was not raised earlier and refused to entertain new contentions at the appeal stage. Instead, the Court emphasized the entitlement of the respondents under paragraph 185(4), granting them the reliefs sought in the writ petition. In conclusion, the Court dismissed all contentions raised by the appellants and upheld the order granting revalidation to the respondents. The appeal was summarily dismissed, affirming the entitlement of the respondents for revalidation and endorsing the import of OGL items on their imprest license. Additionally, a stay was granted for four weeks, subject to certain conditions, allowing the appellants time to consider further legal actions.
|
