1996 (9) TMI 132 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the prohibition on issuing a duplicate copy of a freely transferable import license.
2. Cancellation of the license without a hearing and reasons recorded.
3. Request for issuance of a fresh license due to loss of the original license.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to compel the issuance of a duplicate copy of a Special Import License, challenging the prohibition in Paragraph 21 of the Handbook of Procedure. The court found it unnecessary to determine the arbitrariness of the prohibition as the petitioners themselves requested the cancellation of the original license after it was lost. The court held that since the license was cancelled at the petitioner's request, the respondent did not err in not issuing a duplicate license. The court rejected the contention that the prohibition was arbitrary and ruled in favor of the respondent on this issue.

2. The petitioner alleged a violation of natural justice due to the cancellation of the license without a hearing and reasons recorded. The court noted that the cancellation was done at the petitioner's request following the loss of the license. As the cancellation was based on the petitioner's request, the court held that there was no requirement for a separate hearing or reasons to be recorded. The court dismissed the petitioner's claim of a violation of natural justice in this regard.

3. The petitioner requested the issuance of a fresh license after the loss of the original license. The court directed the respondent to issue a fresh license with the same terms and conditions as the original license, valid for nine months from the date of issue. The court considered the unspent period of the original license and granted the petitioner a new license for the remaining period. The court emphasized that the fresh license should be issued promptly upon the petitioner's application, preferably within a fortnight, and clarified the process for document submission.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the application by directing the issuance of a fresh license to the petitioner for the unspent period of the original license, emphasizing the need for prompt processing of the application and document submission. The court clarified the procedure for obtaining the fresh license and ruled in favor of the respondent on the issues of prohibition on duplicate license issuance and cancellation process.