9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the scheme relating to "Exim Scrip" and the validity of directions given by the respondents regarding payment against genuine Exim Scrips. 2. Refusal of payment for genuine Exim Scrips based on cancellation of Scrips issued to fraudulent exporters. 3. Legal provisions enabling or restricting the respondents from stopping payments for genuine Exim Scrips. 4. Validity of adjustment of claims made under bogus Exim Scrips against claims under genuine Exim Scrips. Analysis: The judgment addresses the issue of whether the respondents can prohibit payment for genuine Exim Scrips based on the cancellation of Scrips issued to fraudulent exporters. The petitioners had obtained payments for genuine Exim Scrips from different exporters, but the respondents refused further payments citing cancellation of Scrips issued to fraudulent entities. The court emphasized that the petitioners had not sought relief regarding refund demands for payments received under bogus Scrips. The court criticized the petitioners for obtaining interim orders related to refunds, causing confusion. The respondents relied on orders debarring fraudulent entities from obtaining import licenses, but the court noted that this should not affect genuine purchasers of Exim Scrips. The judgment delves into the legal provisions governing payment for Exim Scrips and the respondents' authority to stop payments for genuine Scrips. The court highlighted that there was no provision in the Import Control Order or policy enabling the respondents to withhold payments for genuine Exim Scrips. The court rejected the respondents' argument that adjustments could be made based on declarations in the application form. The court emphasized that the respondents lacked legal grounds to refuse payments for genuine Exim Scrips, asserting that such actions undermined the purpose of the scheme. In conclusion, the court allowed all the writ petitions, directing the respondents to make payments for genuine Exim Scrips. The judgment clarified that the respondents could take steps to recover amounts paid under fraudulent Scrips but must honor payments for genuine ones. The court emphasized that the respondents had no legal basis to withhold payments for genuine Exim Scrips and ordered the respondents to comply within four weeks. The judgment did not award costs and vacated all interim orders issued in the case.
|
