1996 (8) TMI 300 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order directing the surrender of the Original Advance Licence.
2. Applicability of new norms to the Advance Licence granted under the old Export Import Policy.
3. Entitlement of the Petitioners to the endorsement of transferability of the Advance Licence.

Summary:

1. Legality of the order directing the surrender of the Original Advance Licence:
The petitioners challenged the order dated 27th June 1994, which directed Petitioner No. 1 to surrender the Original Advance Licence dated 14th September 1993. The court found this order to be illegal and set it aside. The court directed the respondents to endorse the said original Advance Licence for its transferability and to revalidate it for a further period of 6 months from the date of endorsement on or before 26th August 1996.

2. Applicability of new norms to the Advance Licence granted under the old Export Import Policy:
The Advance Licence was granted to the petitioners on 14th September 1993 based on the Export and Import Policy in force from April 1992 to 31st March 1997. The court held that the norms published on 20th January 1995 could not have retrospective effect to cancel or modify the Advance Licence granted prior to that date. The court emphasized that the norms prescribed would take effect only from the date of their publication and not from an earlier date.

3. Entitlement of the Petitioners to the endorsement of transferability of the Advance Licence:
The court noted that the petitioners had complied with their export obligations as per the Advance Licence. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in the case of S.B. International Limited, which stated that the relevant date for the grant of Advance Licence is the date of issue of the licence. Once a licence is granted, it could not be revoked or modified merely on the ground that the value addition norm was changed. The court directed the respondents to endorse the original Advance Licence for its transferability.

Additional Orders:
The court discharged the notice issued for contempt and rejected Notice of Motion No. 263 of 1995. The issuance of a certified copy of this judgment was expedited.