2010 (3) TMI 599 - HC - Customs

- Duty free import authorisations import of dry fruits and packing material - can be imported even if not used in the exported material if license is issued between the period 16th January, 2006 and 7th January, 2009.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of duty-free import authorizations.
2. Compliance with court directions by the DGFT.
3. Decision-making process of the Norms Committee.
4. Principles of natural justice in administrative decisions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner held duty-free import authorizations and sought amendments to include dry fruits and packing materials. The petitioner argued that as the licenses were issued within a specific period, the requested items could be imported even if not used in the exported material. The court noted a previous remand order directing the DGFT to decide on similar endorsements, which the Norms Committee later rejected without proper explanation.

2. The court found that the DGFT had not complied with the previous order, as the matter was referred to the Norms Committee instead of being decided internally. The Norms Committee's decision lacked clarity on the basis for endorsements made on other licenses, despite the policy restrictions. The court set aside the communication from the DGFT and directed a fresh hearing with the petitioner to be conducted within four weeks, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles.

3. The court criticized the Norms Committee for formulating new norms without addressing the petitioner's contentions or explaining the basis for similar endorsements on other licenses. The lack of transparency in the decision-making process was highlighted, leading to the decision to restore the matter to the DGFT for a fair and reasoned decision.

4. Emphasizing the importance of timely decisions, the court directed the DGFT to hear the petitioner, follow natural justice principles, and consider the policy in force during the relevant period. The petitioner was instructed not to seek adjournments, with the option to apply for revalidation if the decision was not made within the stipulated timeframe. The rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioner, with no costs imposed.