9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Non-clearance of goods under an imprest license dated 11th May 1981; Interpretation of Import Policies for different years; Validity of importation under specific policy provisions; Reliance on previous court judgments for similar cases; Application of special conditions for importation.
The judgment by S.M. Daud, J., of the Bombay High Court deals with a petition under Article 226 challenging the non-clearance of goods imported under an imprest license dated 11th May 1981. The imprest license allowed duty-free import of certain items for manufacturing goods to be exported within a specified time. The petitioner fulfilled the export obligation and obtained an endorsement on 18th March 1983 allowing import of goods under certain conditions. However, the respondents objected to the importation citing changes in the Import Policy for 1983-84. The respondents relied on para 254(3) of the Import Policy 1983, which stated that licenses valid under the previous year's policy ceased to be so if there was a change in the policy for the succeeding year. Additionally, the respondents referred to a Supreme Court decision in M/s. D. Navinchandra & Co. v. Union of India, emphasizing the need to comply with the prevailing import policy at the time of import. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the Bombay High Court in a similar case, where it was held that the subsequent policy should not affect the conditions of the license issued under the earlier policy. The court emphasized that the import policy changes are prospective and that the petitioner's entitlement to import goods under the previous policy should be upheld. The court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in D. Navinchandra's case by highlighting the absence of special conditions on the imprest license in the current case, unlike the conditions in the case referred to by the Supreme Court. The court also noted that the pending appeal against a previous judgment should not affect its binding nature. Consequently, the court declared the refusal to allow clearance of goods as illegal, granted approval for the importation, and ordered the discharge of the bank guarantee provided by the petitioners. The rule was made absolute, with each party bearing their own costs.
|
