9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the conditions of an Advance Licence for import of synthetic waste. 2. Imposition of restrictions on the import of synthetic waste under a Replenishment Licence. 3. Application of the Import Export Policy of 1984-85 to the issuance of import licences. 4. Validity of restrictions imposed on the import of synthetic waste under the new Policy. Analysis: The judgment by H. Suresh, J. of the Bombay High Court involved a dispute regarding the import and export obligations of a company holding an Advance Licence for synthetic waste. The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing products, had received an order for woollen blankets for export to Iran, requiring synthetic waste for production. The Import Control Authorities issued an Advance Licence with specific export obligations. The petitioners fulfilled their export obligations but utilized only a portion of the Advance Licence for imports, leading to an Excess Entitlement Certificate. Subsequently, the authorities issued a Replenishment Licence with restrictions, causing the petitioners to seek removal of the limitations. The respondents relied on the Import Export Policy of 1984-85, citing transitional arrangements under Para 254 to justify the restrictions imposed on the import of synthetic waste. They argued that the new Policy limited the replenishment entitlement, and the petitioners' grievances were unfounded. The respondents also mentioned a suspension order affecting the processing of the licence application. However, the petitioners contended that their entitlement arose under the 1983-84 Import Policy, and subsequent changes should not affect their rights. They highlighted a previous judgment supporting their position and emphasized that the transitional arrangements did not permit restrictions on specific items like synthetic waste. In the court's analysis, the judge found that the transitional arrangements did not support the restrictions imposed on the petitioners' import of synthetic waste. The judge emphasized that the right to replenishment against earlier exports should align with the conditions applicable at the time of export. Since there were no changes in the item of import or overall replenishment entitlement, any limitations under the new Policy were deemed inapplicable to the petitioners. Consequently, the judge ruled in favor of the petitioners, making the rule absolute in their favor and allowing a period of revalidation. The judgment concluded with no order as to costs, settling the dispute in favor of the petitioners.
|
