9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to conditions in import licence under Import Export Policy AM-81. Analysis: The petitioner, an Export House, challenged the inclusion of Condition No. 2 in the import licence issued by the respondents, which restricted certain import facilities available to Export Houses under the Import Export Policy AM-81. The petitioner sought an amendment to delete Condition No. 2, arguing that it contradicted other conditions and deprived them of valuable rights. The respondents defended the condition based on alleged existing instructions, but failed to provide specifics or legal basis for its imposition. The Court held that the respondents' action was unsustainable as the licensing authority cannot introduce conditions arbitrarily, and the petitioner was entitled to relief. The Court noted procedural irregularities in the case, including the respondents' failure to serve copies of affidavits filed in court to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner preparing a rejoinder affidavit based on the assumption that the respondents would rely on a specific affidavit, it was later revealed that the said affidavit was not filed. This lack of transparency and casual approach by the respondents in handling the case was criticized by the Court. As a result, the Court proceeded with the hearing considering that the respondents had not filed any return, given the absence of crucial affidavits. The Court granted the petitioner's request for an amendment to delete Condition No. 2 from the import licence and directed the respondents to revalidate the licence for an additional year from the date of deletion. The respondents were also ordered to bear the costs of the petitioner. The Court emphasized that conditions in licences must be reasonable and cannot be imposed arbitrarily without legal basis. The judgment highlighted the importance of transparency and adherence to procedural requirements in legal proceedings to ensure a fair and just outcome.
|
