9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of Ex. 'G' and mandating transferability of unutilized REP licenses under Import and Export Policy for the period April 1985 to March 1988. Analysis: The petitioners, registered as manufacturer-exporters under Import Policy 1985-88, sought to transfer the unutilized portion of their REP licenses (Exs. 'A' to 'E') after utilizing 25% of the c.i.f. value. Their request was denied under Ex. 'G', citing Para 204 of the Policy. The petitioners argued that the non-transferability under Para 204(viii) was limited to the facility availed of, not the remaining unutilized portion. The respondents contended that Para 225 excludes transferability for cases under Para 204. The court found merit in the petitioners' submission, allowing the petition and ordering costs to be paid by the respondents. To understand the case, the court examined various provisions of the Policy. Para 188 outlines the purpose of REP licenses to provide import replenishment for materials required in manufacturing exported products. Para 204 restricts transferability under specific conditions, including sub-para (viii), which mandates non-transferability. However, the court interpreted that the non-transferability under Para 204 is limited to the facility contemplated by the Para. Additionally, Para 225 allows transferability of licenses except for cases under specific Paras, not including partially availed licenses under Para 204. The respondents argued that Para 204(viii) completely prohibits REP license transfer once the facility is utilized. However, the court reasoned that the non-transferability extends only to the value already utilized, as indicated by sub-paras (4), (5), and (7) of Para 204. The court emphasized that Para 225 permits transfer of licenses to the extent of the unutilized value, contradicting the respondents' interpretation. Consequently, the court quashed Ex. 'G' and directed the respondents to endorse transferability of unutilized value on the licenses and revalidate them within eight weeks from the date of submission by the petitioners. The ruling was made absolute with costs awarded to the petitioners.
|
