1994 (4) TMI 174 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application of norms for value addition under the Duty Exemption Scheme.
2. Retrospective effect of the Public Notice dated September 25, 1992.
3. Legal right to mandamus.
4. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Norms for Value Addition under the Duty Exemption Scheme:
The petitioners, M/s. S.B. International Limited, sought advance licenses based on the norms prevailing at the time of their application, which was 1000% value addition for frozen marine products packed in polythene bags. The respondents, however, applied the revised norms of 1900% value addition as per the Public Notice dated September 25, 1992, which was issued after the applications were filed. The court held that the eligibility for the advance licenses should be determined based on the norms prevailing at the time of the application, not at the time of the issuance of the licenses.

2. Retrospective Effect of the Public Notice Dated September 25, 1992:
The court noted that the Public Notice dated September 25, 1992, did not have retrospective effect. The amendments were only prospective and could not apply to applications filed before the date of the notice. The court emphasized that the petitioners had filed their applications and made substantial exports based on the old norms. Applying the new norms retrospectively would be unfair and unjust.

3. Legal Right to Mandamus:
The court examined whether the petitioners had a legal right to mandamus. It was established that the petitioners had a judicially enforceable right to the advance licenses based on the norms prevailing at the time of their application. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the petitioners had no enforceable right and affirmed that the petitioners were entitled to the licenses under the old norms.

4. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The court applied the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, holding that the government, having made a representation through the Public Notice dated March 31, 1992, could not later alter the norms to the detriment of the petitioners who had acted on the basis of that representation. The court cited the decision in M.P. Sugar Mill v. State of Uttar Pradesh to support this principle, emphasizing that the petitioners had altered their position based on the government's promise.

Conclusion:
The court directed the respondents to issue the advance licenses to the petitioners based on the norms prevailing at the time of the application, i.e., before September 25, 1992. The licenses were to be issued forthwith and made transferable in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed, and the prayer for stay of the judgment was refused. There was no order as to costs.