9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it has already entered into – Held that – while refusing to grant interim stay, HC observed that relief prayed for by the Petitioner cannot be granted particularly since it effects the export policy of the Government and the resource sought to be exported is scarce – application dismissed. - 3227 of 2009 (Stay) - - - Dated:- 16-4-2009 - Madan B. Lokur and Siddharth Mridul, JJ. CM No. 3227 of 2009 (Stay) in W.P. (C) No. 5901 of 2008 S/Shri Dushyant Dave, Sr. Advocate with Raj Kumar Mehta, P.K. Ray and Antaryami Upadhyay, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Ms. Monika Garg, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order].- Rule D.B. : By this application, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents to permit the Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting imported into India. But, as a result of the limited canalization, the exports were brought down. 7. Since the limited canalization policy had succeeded, though not adequately, a further Notification was issued on 11th April, 2008 fully canalizing the export of chrome concentrate/chrome ore through MMTC. This was made applicable to 100% export oriented units like the Petitioner. 8. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the policy of canalization is ultra vires the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. It is submitted that it is also arbitrary and on the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation that have been accepted by the Courts in the country, the Petitioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = (1996) 5 SCC 268 to the effect that in the matters of economic policy, the Court should give a large leeway to the executive and the legislature. It is also now well settled that no one has a vested right to export an item and that permission to make an export would depend entirely upon the executive policy prevailing at the appropriate time. 13. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court, we are not inclined to grant any interim relief to the Petitioner without a final decision in the writ petition. 14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon certain decisions such as Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras v. M/s. Aminchand Mutha, etc., 1999 (110) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) = AIR 1966 SC 478 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
