1986 (9) TMI 332 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicant's contention of not being bound by court decisions.
2. Entitlement under certain circumstances for Export House Certificates.
3. Clearance of goods being denied based on previous court decisions.
4. Applicant's argument of not being party to previous proceedings.
5. Clarification of position through official communication.
6. Refusal of interim order in current applications.
7. Disposal of the applications without costs.

Analysis:

1. The applicant argued that they were not bound by certain court decisions as they were neither a party nor served with any notice of the proceedings. However, the court rejected this contention, stating that decisions of the court laying down legal positions are binding on all parties involved, regardless of their participation or awareness.

2. The court discussed a previous order dated 18th April, 1985, where the issue of entitlement under specific circumstances for Export House Certificates was considered. The government had wrongfully refused to grant certificates to those who had not diversified their exports. The court upheld the decisions of various High Courts, quashed the government's orders, and directed the issuance of necessary Export House Certificates within a specified timeline.

3. The applicant claimed that the respondents were not permitting the clearance of goods based on previous court decisions. However, the court did not find merit in this argument and did not grant the interim order sought by the applicant.

4. The applicant contended that they were not bound by the previous proceedings as they were not parties to them. The court reiterated that the decisions made in those proceedings are binding on all parties, regardless of their direct involvement.

5. The court referred to a letter dated 18th June, 1986, issued by the respondent, which clarified the position regarding the importation of goods by holders of additional licenses. The court emphasized that subsequent official communications supersede any earlier conflicting interpretations and cannot be used to create an estoppel or alter the legal position.

6. The court ultimately refused the interim order requested in the current applications, indicating that the relief sought by the applicant was not granted.

7. The applications were disposed of without any specific order as to costs, bringing the legal proceedings to a close without imposing any financial burden on either party.