9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Import Trade Control Policy - Vol. II (page 108), the petitioner was entitled to import replenishment at 5%, mentioned in Col. 3. Besides this, he was entitled to "Additional import replenishment at 30% of the f.o.b. value of exports." He was entitled to import "(i) Winding Wires; (ii) Electrical Steel Stampings" on the above counts. Besides these two counts, the petitioner was also entitled to 'additional allocation' mentioned in para 15 of Section 1. Para 15 is in two clauses, which reads thus :- "Additional allocation to strengthen the base for export production. 15(1) In respect of export products covered by the import policy for Registered Exporters for which the rate of import replenishment in less than 50%, an additional allocation for an amount equal to 10% of the normal replenishment may be allowed against exports made on or after 1.4.1974. (2) In respect of export products falling in the product groups, namely, Engineering goods, Chemicals and allied products, Leather and Leather goods, Sports goods, Handicrafts, Cotton textiles, and Readymade garments, covered by the import policy for Registered Exporters, a supplementary allocation for an amount equal to 10% of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd manner duly filled in, and TR or bank draft for the appropriate amount in addition to the value of licence claimed in accordance with the policy for 1978-79 and revised statement of exports. 7. The petitioner thereupon filed a further appeal to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, which was allowed under the order dated 17.9.1980. We are told that the full order was not communicated to the petitioner, according to prevailing practice. The order communicated to the petitioner only says that his petition has been considered and 'it has been decided to admit your revision petition for review of imports, subject to cut. This is subject to the condition that your case is otherwise completed and in order. Having said so, the order advises the petitioner to approach the joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Hyderabad for appropriate action. We are told that the order communicated to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports contained certain direction with respect to the manner in which the relief to the petitioner was to be granted. Be that as it may, after receiving the order dated 17.9.1980, the petitioner approached the Joint Chief Controller of Imports an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioner's contention that para 209 in Chapter 21 of Import Trade Control Policy for the year 1980-81 is not applicable to him is not correct. It is thereupon that the petitioner approached this Court by way of these writ petitions. 9. Mr. K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged the following contentions : 1) That inasmuch as the petitioner has exported electric fans during the year 1976-77, he is entitled to import goods towards his entitlement in accordance with the said policy alone. The restrictions placed if any in subsequent years' policy (1980-81 policy) are not applicable to him. During the year 1976-77, the petitioner was entitled to import winding wires without any restriction as to gauge. Simply because such a restriction has been imposed in the year 1980-81, it cannot be applied to him. 2) In any event, all the aforesaid restrictions contained in Appendix 3 to the Import Policy 1980-81 cannot be applied to him inasmuch as the petitioner is governed by Appendix 17 to the said import policy. Appendix 17 is a self-contained appendix. It is only subject to appendix 4 which contains a list of absolutely banned goods. It is not subject to app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould first avail of the benefit under para 15 and then apply for cash assistance. In such a case, the letter provided for corresponding reduction in the cash assistance. What happened in this case is that the petitioner first obtained the cash assistance in full and thereafter he came forward claiming the benefit under para 15. The authorities said, he cannot do that and we agree with him. It is evident from the letter aforesaid that a person cannot simultaneously claim the full cash assistance as well as the benefit under para 15. To the extent he avails of the benefit under para 15, cash assistance is reduced. If so, the petitioner having availed of the cash assistance in full cannot thereafter claim the benefit under para 15 in any measure. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner under para 15 should fail. 11. For the sake of convenience, we may also dispose of contention No. 4 urged by Mr. Srinivasa Murthy. According to paras 31 and 32 of Section 1 Part-E of Vol. 2 of 1976-77 Import Trade Control Policy, "an application for import replenishment licence should be made, complete in all respect, so as to reach the licensing authorities concerned within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit at 30% of the FOB value of exports under Col. 5 of Section 2 till 20.8.1968, on which date he applied for that benefit. (His claim for benefit under para 15 has already been rejected by us and needs no further mention.) This claim was ultimately allowed by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, but subject to a restriction. The restriction imposed was that the licence issued did not permit him to import items appearing in appendices 3, 6, 9 and 15 of 1981 policy. As we have already stated, item 595 of appendix 3 prohibited import of winding wires below 44 SWG, and the petitioner wants to import winding wires of less than that gauge, i.e. of 32 to 37 SWG. This restriction is the main point of grievance in these writ petitions. 13. We must first refer to para 209 in Chapter 21 of Import Policy 1980-81 in this behalf. Para 209 reads as follows :- "209. In respect of REP applications pertaining to exports made prior to 1.4.1978, where the licence is issued on or after 15.4.1980, the rate of import replenishment and the items of import will be as laid down in the relevant period policy minus the items appearing in Appendices 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the Import Policy, 1980-81. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be allowed against REP licences eligible to import 'banned items' in accordance with Col. 4 or Col. 5 hereunder, except if such Absolute Banned Item is specially described for import either under Col. 4 or under Col. 5 or against an Advance Licence issued under this policy." A reading of para 5 shows that the benefit of import replenishment granted by the said appendix is subject only to appendix 4 (absolute banned list). By necessary inference this means that appendix 17 is not subject to appendix 3. Indeed, the argument of Mr. Srinivasa Murthy is that unless the import replenishment is in respect of goods contained in appendix 3, the benefit of import replenishment has no meaning, for, the items not banned can be imported by anyone. Be that as it may, since it is admitted before us that to the extent a person is governed by appendix 17, the prohibition contained in appendix 3 does not apply to him, it is unnecessary to pursue the above line of reasoning any further. Serial No. 827 of appendix 17 relates to electric fans and the percentage of import replenishment is 20%. Pausing here for a moment, we may mention that the very method and rate of replenishment has undergone a cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
