1993 (7) TMI 87 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Import-Export Policy 1982-83 regarding import of cars by physically handicapped persons; Examination of petitioner's application for import of a car; Validity of rejection of petitioner's application by Screening Committee based on grounds of application timing, income proof, and extent of disability.

In this case, the petitioner, a physically handicapped individual, applied to import a car under the Import-Export Policy of 1982-83, which allowed importation for physically handicapped individuals without the need for an import license. The petitioner submitted an application supported by a certificate from the Civil Surgeon detailing the nature of the disability and the need for a specially designed car. The Government later informed the petitioner to satisfy certain conditions outlined in a Notification dated May 25, 1983. Despite not approaching the Supreme Court, the Government decided to review the petitioner's application based on the Supreme Court's directive to dispose of such applications filed before December 27, 1982. The Screening Committee rejected the petitioner's application citing reasons such as late submission, lack of income proof, and insufficiency of disability to justify a specially designed car. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the rejection.

The petitioner argued that the Screening Committee erred in considering the application based on the conditions in the May 25, 1983 Notification instead of the conditions in the Import-Export Policy of 1982-83. The Court agreed with this argument and proceeded to assess whether the petitioner met the conditions of the Import-Export Policy. The key issue was whether the petitioner's disability justified the import of a specially designed car with disability control devices. Upon reviewing the medical certificate, the Court found that the petitioner's amputated fingers did not significantly impair the use of the right hand, and there was no other physical disability present. Consequently, the Court concluded that the loss of two fingers did not warrant the importation of a specially designed car as per the policy's criteria. Therefore, the Screening Committee's decision to reject the application was upheld, and the petitioner's claim for relief was denied.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Screening Committee's decision, and discharged the rule with no order as to costs.