1989 (1) TMI 217 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Petitioners entitled to the facility for the import of OGL items as is available in the case of replenishment licences issued to export houses under clauses 1 and 3 of para 185 of A-M 1983 policy? Held that - On a consideration of the matter we think that apart altogether from the merits of the other grounds for rejection, the inordinate delay in preferring the claim before the authorities as also the delay in filing the writ petition before this Court should, by themselves, pursuade us to decline to interfere.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of decisions declining re-validation and endorsement of Imprest Licences for import of Open General Licence items under Import Export Policy of 1982-83.

Analysis:
The petitioners, a recognized Export House, challenged the decisions of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports declining to re-validate and endorse six Imprest Licences for the import of Open General Licence items. The petitioners claimed to have fulfilled their export obligations under the Imprest Licences and sought appropriate writs for re-validation and endorsement. The petitioners had imported uncut and unset diamonds and exported cut and polished diamonds to fulfill their obligations. They argued that they were entitled to the facility for import of Open General Licence items under the Import-Export Policy, 1982-83. However, the authorities declined the request citing inordinate delay in seeking re-validation and endorsement, and the expiration of the validity period for such imports under the policy. The petitioners contended that similar claims made by other parties had been allowed by the courts, and the rejection of their claim was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The grounds for refusal by the authorities were primarily based on the delay in seeking re-validation and the expiration of the validity period for import of Open General Licence items under the policy. The authorities highlighted the lack of prompt action by the petitioners and the absence of provisions for revalidation during the relevant period. The petitioners argued that their case was similar to those allowed by the courts previously and that the rejection was discriminatory. The court noted the significant delay in pursuing the claim and filing the writ petition, which further weakened the petitioners' case. The court emphasized the importance of timely action in matters concerning international trade policies and declined to interfere based on the excessive delay by the petitioners.

In conclusion, the court declined to interfere in the matter, considering the inordinate delay in pursuing the claim and filing the writ petition. The court highlighted the need for prompt action in matters concerning government policies and international trade. The petitioners were informed of their right to appeal as per the appeal procedures in the policy, ensuring that the rejection of the writ petition would not prejudice their case in any potential appeal process.