Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (9) TMI 204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d under import policy for the year 1978-79 on the basis of export for the year 1978-79. They have also sought directions against Respondent No. 2 to renew the export house certificate for a further period of three years w.e.f. 1st July, 1983 and for quashing the show cause notice dated 31st May, 1984 issued by the respondents to petitioner No. 1. 2. Very briefly stated the petitioners, a partnership firm had been dealing in exports of drugs and chemicals. It was registered with basic Chemical and Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council. 3. Petitioner No. 1 entered into a contract on 23rd March, 1979 with M/s. Compagnie Das Paris for the sale and export of 1,000 kgs. Argenti Nitrus. On 24th March, 1979 contract was sent for registration to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ordered that export of those items would not be normally allowed, but would be allowed only in exceptional cases on an application to respondent No. 3. 6. On 30th March, 1979 Export (Control) Order, 1977 was amended, by virtue of which Silver Salts, Silver Compounds were removed from (Schedule I Part B) and were placed under "banned" category (under Schedule I Part A). 7. On account of the public notice the Petitioners, as required by the export promotion scheme, intimated to the respondent No. 2 on 9th April, 1979 about the contracts entered by them with the foreign buyers. According to petitioners, Argenti Nitrus was a drug and, therefore, would not fall under the category of "banned" items. Clarification was sought from the Export Coun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Compound", the export of which was banned. As regards the pre-ban contracts the Department was to decide but we are not concerned was the aspect of individual cases on merits. Petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench have filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court of India, which is pending. 11. The petitioners had been granted export house certificate on the basis of the export of Argenti Nitrus during the period 1979-80. On its expiry on 30th June, 1983 the same was not renewed by the respondents. According to the respondents the previous certificate was obtained by misrepresenting the facts. Argenti Nitrus was exported after the public notice dated 30th March, 1979 hence the export house cert .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge of Bombay High Courts. In our view, since the interim orders are no more in existence, therefore, petitioners cannot take any shelter nor can use the interim orders as anchor to seek further relief. 15. Interim orders are passed to ensure that the parties might not be prejudiced by the normal delay which the proceedings before the Court usually take. They do not, in that sense, decide in any manner the merits of the controversy in issue and do not, of course, put an end to it even in part. As these orders do not impinge upon the level rights of parties, hence the relief sought on the same basis after the same has once been disposed of, the Court would be justified in rejecting the same .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 17. Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Counsel for the Petitioner however contended that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge had left the issue open regarding the benefit accruing for the export made in pursuance to the interim orders. 18. We find no merits in this argument of the petitioners. The interim orders merged in the final order and the final order has already been set aside by the Division Bench. Hence there exist no order as of today in favour of the petitioners. Since the interim orders came to an end with the passing of final order and are no more in existence, therefore, the present reliefs based on these interim orders cannot be maintained. The benefits claimed by petitione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates