9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as but, when license was granted it was not a prohibited item. Even under the new policy, DGFT has got power to give relaxation. Therefore, DGFT directed to reconsider the application of extension of authorization – Supreme Court disagreed with the views of HC and allowed the appeal of the DGFT - 2487 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 11-5-2007 - S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ. S/Shri A. Subba Rao, Vikas Sharma and V.K. Verma, Advocates, for the Petitioner. S/Shri M.P. Vinod, Ajay K. Jain and Ms. Seema Jain, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order].- Leave granted. 2. Respondent was granted a license/authorization to export Sandal Wood Oil as far back as in 1996. The goods, however, were not exported within the time stipulated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of the petitioner that the respondent is taking the stand that as per the new policy for 2002-2007, extension cannot be made for more than one year. We agree with the view of the learned Single Judge. Once the license is issued, it cannot be eternal. The export of Sandal Wood Oil sought to be made by the petitioner is a prohibited item as per the present policy, but, when license was granted it was not a prohibited item. By export the Nation will he earning foreign exchange also. Even under the new policy, DGFT has got power to give relaxation. Therefore, we direct the Director General of Foreign Trade to consider the case of the petitioner for one time export since the petitioner has already procured the materials and got a license as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 51 of the 1962 Act also speaks of prohibition. Thus, in terms of the 1992 Act as also the policy and the procedure laid down thereunder, the terms are required to be applied in different situations wherefor different orders have to he made or different provisions in the same order as required therefor. 47. We, however, need not dilate on the said question as in the case of Agri Trade India Services (P) Ltd. the requirements of Section 51 of the 1962 Act had not been complied with whereas in the case of Asian Foods Industries, it was done." 7. The case at hand is covered by the said judgment. Hence, we are of the opinion that the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
