1986 (3) TMI 236 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of applications for grant of replenishment license and cash assistance.
2. Compliance with international competitive bidding procedures.
3. Timeliness of the application submission.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Applications for Grant of Replenishment License and Cash Assistance:

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated March 13, 1979, July 25, 1979, January 5, 1980, and September 22, 1980, which rejected their applications for replenishment license and cash assistance. The grounds for rejection included the application being time-barred and the supplies being made under a "Risk Purchase" contract, which did not qualify for assistance.

The petitioner argued that they were entitled to the grant of replenishment licenses/cash assistance as per the import trade control policy for registered exporters for the year AM 1976-77. They contended that their supplies to Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB) under the IDA/IBRD aided project should qualify for such assistance.

2. Compliance with International Competitive Bidding Procedures:

The petitioner's contract was awarded through a limited tender enquiry after the original contractor failed to execute the order. The petitioner argued that the limited tender enquiry was in accordance with the procedure of international competitive bidding as outlined in the IDA Credit 242-IN and the import trade control policy.

However, the court found that the procedure for international competitive bidding was not followed. The import policy for registered exporters required that supplies be made under the procedure of international competitive bidding, which involves extensive global advertising and specific bidding documents. The limited tender enquiry did not meet these criteria, and thus, the supplies did not qualify for replenishment licenses/cash assistance.

The court also noted that while the World Bank or IDA might accept contracts entered into by procedures other than international competitive bidding under special circumstances, the Central Government's policy for AM 1976-77 did not accept such procedures for granting replenishment licenses/cash assistance.

3. Timeliness of the Application Submission:

The petitioner's application for replenishment license and cash assistance was rejected partly on the grounds of being time-barred. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the late issuance of the necessary certificate by the Central Electricity Authority, which was received on November 25, 1978, and the application was submitted on December 18, 1978.

The court did not find it necessary to express an opinion on the question of limitation due to its findings on the first issue regarding compliance with international competitive bidding procedures.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for international competitive bidding as required by the import trade control policy for the relevant year. Consequently, the impugned orders rejecting the applications for replenishment license and cash assistance were upheld. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record in the authorities' decisions. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.