1993 (6) TMI 164 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order dated 12-8-1992 by the 2nd respondent.
2. Direction to exercise powers under Clause 21 of the Export and Import Policy (1992-1997).
3. Issuance of permission/licence for export of sandalwood chips and powder.
4. Compensation for losses suffered by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Order Dated 12-8-1992 by the 2nd Respondent:
The petitioner sought to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent on 12-8-1992, arguing that it was issued without proper consideration and application of mind. The court found that the impugned order lacked any indication of consideration of the material placed before the respondent. The court noted that the Division Bench had previously directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application under Clause 21 of the new Export and Import Policy. The impugned order was found to be unsustainable as it did not show any application of mind or consideration of the petitioner's case.

2. Direction to Exercise Powers Under Clause 21 of the Export and Import Policy (1992-1997):
The petitioner requested the court to direct the respondent to exercise powers under Clause 21, which allows for relaxation of the policy in cases of genuine hardship. The court emphasized that the Division Bench had already directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application under Clause 21. The court found that the petitioner had established pre-existing contracts and genuine hardship due to the new policy, thereby entitling it to relaxation under Clause 21. The court held that further delay in consideration by the respondent would add to the petitioner's hardship and defeat the purpose of Clause 21.

3. Issuance of Permission/Licence for Export of Sandalwood Chips and Powder:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue the necessary permission/licence to export sandalwood chips and powder to fulfill seven contracts. The court found that the petitioner had entered into contracts prior to the new policy's effective date and had made significant investments based on the old policy. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to export the material under the old policy's conditions and directed the respondent to issue the necessary permission/licence, subject to satisfying all other conditions under the old policy.

4. Compensation for Losses Suffered by the Petitioner:
The petitioner also sought compensation for the losses suffered due to the new policy. However, the court did not explicitly address this issue in its final order, focusing instead on the relief sought through the issuance of the necessary permission/licence for export.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order dated 12-8-1992, and issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue the necessary permission/licence for the export of sandalwood chips and powder to fulfill the seven contracts. The court emphasized the need for timely consideration to prevent further hardship to the petitioner. No costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →