9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to March, 1997, hereinafter referred to as the said Policy, contained the Duty Exemption and Remission inter alia provided for issue of advance licenses for duty free import of the raw materials/inputs against export obligation. The petitioners were issued several advance licences. Against the advance licences granted to the petitioners exports were effected from time to time and export obligations were duly discharged by the petitioners. 3. The present petition relates to two advance licences bearing No.03020800 dated 12 th December, 1995 and 03201698 dated 28 th March, 1996 which hereinafter shall be referred to as the licences. According to the petitioners at the time of exports the petitioners correctly declared the goods in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there are different specifications for the said yarn. These specifications are known, accepted and well recognised in the international market. There are different grades of quality, and each quality has a different price. These different grades in turn are based on different specifications and each such specification has different end-uses. Nonetheless all the varieties of the said yarn are commercially known, sold and marketed as Rayon Viscose Filament Yarn. In order to distinguish one quality from the other, different nomenclatures are used. At times some of the qualities are referred to as sub-standard, which is only to distinguish the quality of one type of yarn from the other. The sub-standard yarn is also Rayon Viscose Filament Yarn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their Directors in terms of Section 11 of the said Act. 6. Between 7 th March, 2005 and 26 th April, 2005 in view of the completion of audit and/or logging by the Customs Authorities the petitioners submitted all the relevant documents to the Licensing Authority for issuance of Redemption Certificate. Certain discrepancies were pointed out and the same documents were returned to the petitioners. On 30 th June, 2005 after receiving the documents duly completed by the Customs Authorities and after complying with the other deficiencies pointed out by the Licensing Authority the Petitioners once again submitted the relevant export documents to the Licensing Authority. When the matter was pending with the Licensing Authority on 20 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 196.04 metric tonnes in case of the said license dated 12 th December, 1995 and on 163.90 metric tonnes in case of the said license dated 28 th March, 1996 and returned all original documents to the petitioners. The petitioners requested for considering the representation made by letter of 2 nd December, 2005. Inspite of that on 10 th April, 2006 by two identical letters the petitioners were called upon to pay duty as earlier demanded. Inspite of further correspondence and as no relief was granted the present petition. 7. A reply has been filed by Vijay N. Shewale, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. It is their contention that the petitioners had exported sub-standard goods and as such they were liable to pay customs duty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was binding on the respondents and they could not have taken the decision contrary to the said policy. On that count alone the decision communicated is liable to be quashed and set aside. . In the alternative it is submitted that even assuming without admitting that it was open to PRC to take a decision that decision could not be retrospective and at the highest it could be prospective considering that the petitioners have already completed their export obligation under the policy then in force. 9. Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 reads as under :- "5. Export and import policy.— The Central Government may, from time to time formulate and announce, by notification in the Official Gazette, the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequently the order on this count is liable to be set aside. On behalf of the Respondents Shri A.J. Rana, Senior Counsel with his usual fairness has placed before us a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Udeshi vs. Union of India in Writ Petition No.808 of 2002 decided on 1 st October, 2002 wherein in respect of a similar issue the learned Bench held that the power to amend the policy being within the exclusive domain of the Central Government the said powers in that case could not have been usurped by D.G.F.T. in the guise of laying down regulatory measures. The judgment of this Court was taken in applied to the Supreme Court which dismissed the Special Leave Petition by its order dated 7 th Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
