9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces were valid For 35 items mentioned in the lists attached to the said licences. The value of the said items, as mentioned in licence No. 2666861 was ₹ 1,11,837/-, in licence No. 2666862 as ₹ 20,111/- and in licence No. 2666863 as ₹ 43,323/-. Even though these licences permitted the import of 35 items the value of each of the items permitted to be imported ws not specified separately in the licences. These import licences were granted on 23-3-1973 on the applications dated 23-1-1973 submitted by the petitioner company for transfer of the import entitlement of the aforesaid registered exporters of handicrafts and in pursuance to the Import Trade Control Policy for the year April 1972 to March 1973 announced by the Government of India, Ministry of Foreign Trade in the Gazette of India dated 3-6-1972. 3. One of the items which the petitioner was permitted to import on the basis of the three licences was Nitro Cellulose Cotton which is one of the principal raw materials for manufacture of lacquers and nitro cellulose lacquers. As these two items did not figure in the list of the items covered by actual users licence produced by the petitioner and as the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ences cannot in law be adjusted against the value of the valid import licences issued subsequently. The JCCIE rejected the appeal, indicating for the first time that the action appealed against was taken because the petitioner failed to produce DGTD s certificate in compliance with the undertaking given by the petitioner company in the nomination forms on the basis of which the three licences were issued in its favour. The petitioner company, therefore, preferred an appeal to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (hereinafter referred to as CCIE) on 26-12-1974. The CC1E, however, did not communicate anything in the matter to the petitioner company till 18-4-1980 when in reply to the petitioner s letter dated 17th December 1979 the company was informed that the views of the office of the CCIE were communicated to the JCCIE, Bombay, who would inform the decision with regard to petitioner s appeal. 5. Some months later the JCCIE vide his letter dated 4-8-1980 informed the petitioner as follows :- With reference to your interview with D.C. (Shri N.K. Jagtap), I write to inform you that the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, has already decided your 2nd app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal against any other action taken in exercise of the powers conferred on the various authorities. No appeal is provided against the adjustment of previous licences against new ones. As the appeals were not maintainable, the orders passed by the appellate authority are of no consequence and it is not necessary to quash the orders. It must, however, be said that as the appeals were entertained it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to hear the petitioner before deciding these appeals, 9. This takes me to the original order dated 27-4-1974 by which the value of the three licences issued on 23-3-1973 was adjusted against the import entitlement of the petitioner for the year 1973-74. This order was also passed without hearing the petitioner. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon it to show cause why value of the three earlier licences should not be adjusted against the import entitlement for the subsequent years. Such an opportunity was necessary even assuming that the said order was an administrative order because it did affect the civil right of the petitioner to import goods to the extent of ₹ 1,75,271/-. As mentioned above, though the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities entrusted with the duty to implement the import policy. No such adjustment can be made even if the licensee committed breach of any of the conditions of the licence. For breach of the conditions of the licence, licence itself can be cancelled under clause 9. Without specifically canceling the licence, the value of the licence cannot be adjusted against any future entitlement. Such action cannot be taken even if the party fails to produce any document or information that is called for by the CCIE or any other licensing autliority, even though for this failure the licensee can be debarred for specific period from getting a licence or allotment of imported goods as contemplated by clause 8 of Import Control Order. 11. It is also not possible to contend that to the extent of the adjustment the application for licence should be deemed to have been refused within the meaning of clause 5 because grant of licence can be refused under clause 6 only on the grounds mentioned in items (a) to (f) of sub-clause (1) of clause 6. The impugned action, therefore, was clearly without jurisdiction. 12. As mentioned above, no reasons were given in the impugned order dated 27-2-1974 for ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to adjust the amount of the three licences against future entitlement of the petitioner in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner while obtaining the licences in question. It is difficult to accept this submission because as contemplated by the undertaking itself the excess licensing is to be ascertained on the basis of the scrutiny of the application of the registered exporter and not on the basis of anything done or purported to be done by the nominee. Therefore, simply because the petitioner failed to produce DGTD s certificate or utilised the licences in spite of the directions to the contrary, it cannot be said that to the extent of the entire value of the three licences there was excess licensing. 17. Paras 26 and 27 of Part E of Section I of Volume II of the Import Trade Control Policy for the year 1972-73 contain the provision for nomi nation. Para 26 provides :- Nominations may be made in favour of a manufacturer/manufacturers of any product in the same category or product group where there is no category (as explained in the notes at the beginning of Section II) to which the exported product belongs. Nominations may also be made in favour of manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
