9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of import and export policy amendments. 2. Validity of import restrictions post-public notice. 3. Application of promissory estoppel in policy matters. 4. Adjudication proceedings and enforcement of orders. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of import and export policy amendments made by the Government of India. The petitioners argued that the amendments could not affect imports for which irrevocable letters of credit were opened before the publication of the public notice. However, the court held that the government has the authority to amend import policies at any time based on prevailing circumstances. The court also rejected the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in policy matters, emphasizing that import policy amendments take effect upon publication of the public notice. Issue 2: Another crucial issue was the validity of import restrictions imposed post-public notice. The court noted that the amended policy restricted the import of fatty acids and acid oils to be through the canalising agency, namely the State Trading Corporation of India. The court clarified that imports could only be allowed against shipments made before the date of the public notice. Since the consignment imported by the petitioners was after the specified date, the court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief under the amended policy. Issue 3: The question of applying promissory estoppel in policy matters was raised by the petitioners, citing a previous Delhi High Court decision. However, the court disagreed with this argument, stating that the doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply to policy matters. The court emphasized that the government's ability to amend import policies as needed takes precedence over any expectations based on previous actions or agreements. Issue 4: Lastly, the issue of adjudication proceedings and enforcement of orders was addressed. The court permitted the respondents to commence adjudication proceedings against the petitioners, despite the consignment being directed to be cleared earlier. The court ruled that if any redemption, fine, or penalty is imposed on the petitioners, the amount should be paid from the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners. Additionally, the State Trading Corporation of India was entitled to receive 2% of the c.i.f. value deposited by the petitioners as per the interim order. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, discharged the rule with costs, allowed the commencement of adjudication proceedings by the respondents, and directed the enforcement of orders as necessary, including the payment to the State Trading Corporation of India and the continuation of the bank guarantee for a specified period.
|
