9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereinafter referred to as the '1983-84 policy'). Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, was recognised as an export house vide certificate dated 28-12-1982. The certificate expired on 31-3-1983. Para 198(1) of the 1983-84 policy allowed the petitioner to apply for renewal of the certificate. The petitioner filed an application on 25-7-1983 (Annexure P-2) for renewal of the trading house certificate. Para 203(1) of the 1983-84 policy permitted a trading house to apply for an additional licence and if the certificate has expired, on 31-3-1983 to apply for an additional licence within two months of securing certificate of recognition as a trading house. The petitioner applied for renewal of its certificate of recognition as a trading house, on 25-7-1983 and in terms of Para 203(1) of the 1983-84 policy applied for an additional licence, on 26-5-1984. The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar, informed the petitioner, vide letter dated 19-6-1984 that copy of a valid trading house certificate has not been appended and even otherwise, the application is delayed by seven months and 25 days as it had to be submitted up to 30-9-1983. The petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ording that as the case has already been considered at the level of Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, the appeal cannot be considered. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition. During pendency of this petition, the respondents agreed to reconsider the matter after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but have once again rejected the application, vide order Annexure P-17/A. 5. Counsel for the petitioner urges that a perusal of Para 8 of the fresh order, Annexure P-17/A, reveals that the Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, has wrongly rejected the application dated 26-2-1992, for an additional licence, by holding that instead of filing a fresh application, the petitioner, has after receipt of trading house certificate, on 26-2-1992, filed an application for revival of application dated 26-5-1984, which was not maintainable for want of a trading house certificate instead of filing a fresh application. The finding has been recorded by ignoring Para 203(1) of the 1983-84 policy, which allows the filing of an application within two months of renewal of the certificate, ignored the fact that application for additional licence filed on 26-2-1992, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rayed for revival of application dated 26-5-1984, the additional licence has been rightly denied. The fact that the respondents may have entertained the application, sought a declaration and an affidavit does not detract from the fact that the petitioner did not file a fresh application and sought revival of application dated 26-5-1984, which was not maintainable as it was not accompanied by a trading house certificate. As the petitioner did not file a fresh application within the stipulated period of two months, the application for issuance of additional licence has been rightly rejected. 7. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, the impugned orders and are rather surprised if not mystified at the reasons assigned for rejecting the application for additional licence. The respondents do not deny that as per Para 203(1) of the 1983-84 policy, the petitioner was eligible for grant of an additional licence and within two months of issuance of the renewed certificate, on 18-2-1992, filed an application dated 26-2-1992 for grant of an additional licence but have rejected the application, on the specious ground that application dated 18-2-1992, merely prays f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter securing the Trading House Certificate concerned. All applications of Trading Houses for import replenishment and Additional licences should be made to the regional licencing authority within the area of whose jurisdiction the Registered Office of the Trading House is situated." 10. The petitioner's licence expired on 31-3-1983 and as application for renewal was pending, the petitioner was entitled in terms of Para 203(1) of the 1983-84 policy to apply for an additional licence within two months of renewal of the licence. The petitioner chose in its wisdom to file an application, dated 26-5-1984, for grant of an additional licence, at a time when its licence had not been renewed, in the belief that the certificate would be renewed. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar, informed the petitioner that the petitioner does not hold a valid trading house certificate, and the application, is late by 7 months and 25 days. The petitioner was asked to furnish deficient information within 30 days, failing which the application will be "automatically closed without any further reference". A relevant extract from letter dated 19-6-1984, reads as follows : - "With ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his disposes off your letter under reference." 12. The petitioner thereafter addressed letters seeking decision of the application for renewal of trading house certificate and grant of additional licence but did not receive any response. 13. After a delay of nearly nine long years, certificate of recognition as a trading house, valid from 1-4-1983 to 8-11-1983, was issued, in accordance with the 1983-84 policy, on 18-2-1992. The petitioner, in accordance with rights conferred by Para 203(1) of the 1983-84 policy, allowing the petitioner to apply for an additional licence within two months of renewal, addressed letter dated 26-2-1992, within eight days of issuance of the certificate, to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Ludhiana, informing him that as it has received a trading house certificate on 18-2-1992, and while referring to a letter dated 27-8-1991 and in continuation of earlier letters, prayed that an additional licence be issued at the earliest. A relevant extract from letter dated 26-2-1992, reads as follows : - "With reference to the above and in continuation to our letter No. OWM/E/146H/2866, dated 27th Aug., 91 we are enclosing herewith the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DGFT and the same has been rejected as there has been a delay on your part in filing the application within the prescribed time." 19. A perusal of the above order reveals that it does not refer to the nature of the alleged delay and whether delay referred to, is in application filed in 1984 or in the application filed in 1992. 20. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce which was rejected by informing the petitioner that its case having already been considered and rejected at the level of Commerce Secretary, the case cannot be reopened. 21. The petitioner filed the instant petition but during pendency of the petition, as the respondents offered to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents were directed to pass a fresh order. Vide order dated 8/11-7-1996 (Annexure P-17/A), the Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, dismissed the application by holding as follows : - "8. I have examined the full facts of the case. The policy clearly prescribed that application for additional licence has to be filed within two months after securing the Trading House Cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeks renewal of application filed on 25-5-1984, which was not maintainable as it was not accompanied by a trading house certificate and, therefore, the absence of a fresh application disentitles the petitioner to an additional licence. A perusal of letter dated 26-2-1992, and all relevant facts reveal that at no stage, have the respondents alleged that the petitioner is ineligible but have by a clever play of words, which we have already reproduced, denied relief to the petitioner. A perusal of letter dated 26-2-1992 reveals that it refers to earlier reminders which relate back to application dated 26-5-1984 but prays for grant of an additional licence. The respondents have, in our considered opinion and for reasons we are unable to fathom, intentionally and by a technical play of words construed, this letter as a mere letter for revival of application dated 26-5-1984. The letter does not by any words whether specific or inferential pray for revival of application dated 26-5-1984 but instead specifically prays that an additional licence be issued. The use of the words "in continuation" etc. does not raise an inference, as held by the respondents that letter dated 26-2-1992 merely s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
