9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Import Policy for the year 1983-84 regarding the entitlement to import OGL items against REP licences, refusal of authorities to endorse a licence for an Export House, and the validity of circulars issued by the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports. Analysis: The judgment by Pendse, J. of the Bombay High Court dealt with a dispute arising from the refusal of the authorities to endorse a licence for an Export House, specifically regarding the import of OGL items against REP licences under the Import Policy for the year 1983-84. The Government of India had issued the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, allowing for the restriction and regulation of imports and exports. The Export Promotion Scheme was devised to incentivize traders to export goods and earn foreign exchange. The petitioner, a financing REP Licences business, transferred licences to recognized export houses, including respondent No. 5, for valuable consideration. The refusal to endorse the licence of respondent No. 5 was based on a circular issued by the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, restricting additional import entitlements for specific items only. The petitioner contended that the Import Policy permitted the import of OGL items against REP licences as per paragraph 185, and the refusal to endorse the licence of respondent No. 5 was unjustified. The authorities claimed that the additional import replenishment under Column 5 of the Policy was specific and could not be used for all OGL items. However, the court held that the Import Policy did not restrict the import of OGL items against REP licences, and the advantage conferred by paragraph 185 should apply to all entitlements under the Policy. The court found the authorities' refusal to endorse the licence of respondent No. 5 erroneous and directed them to make the endorsement in accordance with paragraph 185(3) of the Policy. In the final ruling, the court made the rule absolute, directing respondent No. 4 to endorse the licence within four weeks. Additionally, as the policy period had ended, the authorities were instructed to revalidate the licence for six months to enable the import of OGL items permissible under the subsequent Policy. The judgment clarified that the endorsement would allow respondent No. 5 to import OGL items permitted under the Policy for 1983-84, except those banned under the Policy for 1985-88. No costs were awarded in the case. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the Import Policy provisions and the obligations of the authorities regarding the endorsement of licences for import purposes.
|
