9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. 2. Application of the Import and Export Policy for the period April 1988 to March 1991. 3. Eligibility criteria for availing Open General Licence for import. 4. Discretion and obligations of the Development Commissioner in registering import contracts. 5. Application of the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel against the Government. 6. Fundamental right to carry on private trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Analysis: 1. The judgment delves into the powers conferred by the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, allowing the Central Government to regulate imports and exports. The Imports (Control) Order, 1955 lists controlled items, permitting import under specific conditions like licensing or Open General Licence. 2. The case involves the Import and Export Policy for April 1988 to March 1991, which allows amendments notified by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The petitioner, a Small Scale Industry Unit, seeks to import specified materials under the Open General Licence. 3. The petitioner meets eligibility criteria for the Open General Licence as an Actual User (Industrial) under the Import Policy. The materials sought to be imported fall under a specific category in the policy, entitling the petitioner to import them. 4. The judgment discusses the conditions governing import under the Open General Licence, emphasizing the requirement to register import contracts with the Development Commissioner. The Development Commissioner's obligation to register contracts within a specified period is highlighted. 5. The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is applied, stating that the Government is bound by its representations in the Import Policy, and cannot retract from them. The judgment cites relevant Indian Supreme Court decisions establishing the applicability of Promissory Estoppel against the Government. 6. The judgment upholds the fundamental right to carry on private trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It emphasizes that unless clear legislative provisions allow, public functionaries like the Development Commissioner cannot refuse registration of import contracts, affecting the right to carry on trade and business. In conclusion, the judgment rules in favor of the petitioner, directing the registration of import contracts and emphasizing the importance of adhering to the Import Policy's provisions without arbitrary refusals.
|
