1980 (1) TMI 147 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Export (Control) Order amendments.
2. Validity of Remittance Certificates.
3. Right to obtain an export license.
4. Interim relief and principles analogous to res judicata.
5. Impact of new export policy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Export (Control) Order amendments:
The petitioners entered into contracts to export silver wires before the amendment of the Exports (Control) Order on 13th August 1979. This amendment added sub-item (iv) to item 77 of Part 'B' of Schedule I, allowing the export of products with 50% or less silver content "on merits." The petitioners applied for export permission, asserting they received full advance payment before the public notice. The respondents rejected the applications, citing non-compliance with the conditions of the public notice, particularly the timing of remittance certificate amendments.

2. Validity of Remittance Certificates:
The respondents doubted the genuineness of the remittance certificates, suspecting amendments were made post-public notice. The petitioners provided documents from banks showing amendments were made on 3rd August 1979, prior to the public notice. The court found the respondents' suspicion baseless and accepted the petitioners' evidence, confirming compliance with the public notice conditions.

3. Right to obtain an export license:
The court acknowledged that while the petitioners do not have a vested or fundamental right to an export license, they are entitled to one if they meet the conditions set by the export policy. The rejection of their applications adversely affected their right, allowing them to seek judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court referenced Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, affirming the petitioners' right to challenge the rejection.

4. Interim relief and principles analogous to res judicata:
The respondents argued that the review application was barred by principles analogous to res judicata since the petitioners' initial interim relief application was rejected, and the subsequent appeal was withdrawn. The court dismissed this argument, noting that new material surfaced after the original order, justifying the review application. The court emphasized that interlocutory orders could be reconsidered if fresh material or changed circumstances arise.

5. Impact of new export policy:
The respondents contended that the petitioners' applications should be judged based on the new export policy effective from 5th November 1979. The court rejected this, stating that the policy in force at the time of the original application and rejection (13th August 1979) should apply. The court referenced Supreme Court decisions, clarifying that new policies do not retroactively affect applications made and decided upon under previous policies.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the interim order allowing the petitioners to export half the value of the contract quantity. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the respondents' Notice of Motion was also dismissed. The appellants' request for continued interim stay was addressed by the respondents' assurance not to export the goods until 4th February 1980, resulting in no further order on the stay application.