1991 (4) TMI 244 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of revalidation and OGL endorsement on imprest licence.

Analysis:
The petitioner-firm challenged the rejection of revalidation and OGL endorsement on its imprest licence for importing uncut diamonds. The rejection was based on the expired Export House Certificate and the change in policy. The court referred to a similar case where rejection was set aside, emphasizing that entitlement under a valid licence cannot be denied due to policy changes. Another case highlighted the reconciliation of conflicting provisions in the Import-Export Policy to grant revalidation and endorsement. The court considered the delay in approaching the authorities and decided to grant partial relief, similar to a previous case, by setting aside the rejection and directing revalidation and endorsement with a 25% cut in benefit due to the delay. The court ordered compliance within 12 weeks and non-transferability of the licence, along with costs to be paid by the petitioners.

In the judgment, the court discussed the implications of para 185(4) and para 185(7) of the Import-Export Policy. It was held that para 185(4) is an exception to para 185(7), and harmonious construction of the provisions allows for revalidation and endorsement under specific circumstances. The court referred to previous cases to establish the precedent for granting relief in similar situations. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely application and balanced the rights of the petitioners with the delay in approaching the authorities. The court's decision aimed to strike a balance by granting partial relief while considering the delay in seeking revalidation and endorsement.

The judgment addressed the rejection based on the expired Export House Certificate and policy changes. It referenced previous cases to establish the precedent for granting relief in similar circumstances. The court considered the delay in approaching the authorities and decided to grant partial relief by setting aside the rejection and directing revalidation and endorsement with a 25% cut in benefit due to the delay. The court emphasized the importance of timely application and balanced the rights of the petitioners with the delay in seeking revalidation and endorsement. The decision aimed to provide a fair outcome by considering all relevant factors and granting relief while imposing certain conditions and costs on the petitioners.