TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instructing the first respondent to furnish the consumption details relating to reduction of quantity of vitamin mixes, on the basis of the circular dated 21.01.1999. Since the first respondent failed to comply with the said requirement, their request for revalidation was rejected by the appellant authorities - in view of the settled law that when the authorities are having sufficient reasons to have such a policy decision to impose certain conditions in the circular, power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a decision. It has been repeatedly held that courts will not ordinarily interfere with such decisions, when the same are taken in the public interest. Thus, in the absence of consumption details relating to vitamin mixes, as required in the circular issued by the appellant authorities, the request of the first respondent seeking revalidation could not be acceded to; and that, there is no provision in the current foreign trade policy to allow a revalidation of licence pertaining to the period of 1996 and 1997, this court cannot compel the appellant authorities to revalidate the licences of the first respondent - appeal allowed. - Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Judge allowed the aforesaid writ petitions and directed the appellants to revalidate the licences of the first respondent in accordance with law, within a period of two months. For better appreciation, the findings of the learned Judge are quoted below: 15.Thus, on a cumulative consideration of all the above materials and the reasons assigned in the preceding paragraphs, the following emerges; that the respondents have not disputed that the petitioner has fulfilled their export obligations, consequent to which they are entitled to import the materials as would be authorised under the advance licences. Though the petitioner could not effect the import within the permissible time, but applied for revalidation of the licence well before the expiry of the original period of licence. Such application for revalidation was not considered by the respondents and no endorsement of revalidation or rejection of request was either made and communicated to the petitioner, after the period of 30 months from the original date of issue of licences, the respondents have stated that the revalidation cannot be made after a period of 30 months. The fact remains that the petitioner was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent made similar applications for revalidation of the licences, which were, based on the decision of the Advance Licensing Committee No.24/01 dated 19.10.2000, rejected by the Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, by separate orders dated 22.11.2000, on the ground that the validity of the licences has already been extended upto 30 months and there is no provision for revalidation beyond 30 months from the date of issue of licences and that, a query was raised as to whether while allowing revalidation, the instructions contained in the HQRS SALC Circular No.5/98-99 dated 21.01.1999 i.e., reduction of quantity of vitamin mixes from 0.227 MT/MT to 0.027 MT/MT, were complied with. Notwithstanding the same, the first respondent again submitted representations seeking revalidation based on the Public Notice dated 31.03.2001 and the same were rejected by separate orders dated 05.09.2001 of the Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai, for want of consumption details of vitamin mixes as called for. All the orders passed by the respondent authorities were challenged by the first respondent by filing writ petitions invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of the first respondent seeking revalidation, was rejected. Without considering the same, the learned Judge allowed the writ petitions by directing the authority concerned to revalidate the licences by the order dated 29.04.2011. When the said order of the learned Judge was placed before the Policy Relaxation Committee for action, by meeting no.41/AM12 dated 21.02.2012, the same was also rejected, after having noted that the first respondent earlier did not accept the reduced quantity of inputs and despite having provided a validity of 30 months, they did not undertake imports; and the authorizations pertain to the period of 1996 and 1997 and that, at this distance of time, there was no merit to revalidate these 4 authorizations. Such a decision taken by the committees, which are specially constituted bodies, cannot be interfered with by this court under writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to allow these appeals by quashing the order of the learned Judge. 5.1. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that after satisfying the eligibility of the first respondent, they were issued with four advance licences an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st respondent stating that no communication was received by them to that effect. While so, the request made by the first respondent seeking revalidation, was rejected by the Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, by orders dated 22.11.2000. Challenging those two orders, the first respondent preferred the first batch of writ petitions. Thereafter, by placing reliance on the public notice no.2(RE-01)(PN)1997-2002 dated 30.03.2001, the first respondent again made applications seeking revalidation of the licences, which were rejected on 05.09.2001 for want of consumption details relating to Vitamin Mixes in their resultant product. Aggrieved over the same, the second batch of writ petitions were filed by the first respondent. The learned Judge allowed both the batches of writ petitions by setting aside all the orders passed by the authorities concerned. Therefore, the present appeals by the appellants. 8.According to the appellants, the request of the first respondent seeking revalidation of the licences, was rejected by the appellant authorities, based on the decision of the Advance Licensing Committee, after calling for report from the Regional Licensing Authority, on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities were advised not to allow clearance of Vitamin Mixes beyond a quantity of 0.027 MT/MT of export. 2. Instructions have now been sought as to in what manner requests for revalidation in such cases should be dealt with. The matter has been carefully examined. All the Licensing Authorities are hereby advised that while considering the requests of revalidation of such advance licences issued prior to 1.4.1997, the consolidated quantity of vitamin Mixes/ Mineral Mixes of 0.027 MT/ MT should be bifurcated into two parts, namely (i)vitamin mixes = 0.027 MT/MT and (ii)Mineral Mixes = 0.200 MT/MT. Similar action should also be taken in respect of advance licences issued on or after 1.4.1997 where the benefit of paragraph 66 of Export and Import Policy 1996-97 has been granted permitting the consolidated quantity of 0.227 MT/MT for vitamin mixes/ mineral mixes. All the licensing authorities are advised to follow these instructions strictly. This issues with the approval of Director General of Foreign Trade. Yours faithfully, (L.K.BATRA) Jt. Director General of Foreign Trade Copy for information to:- Jt. DGFTs (DES/Policy Division ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4009928 dated 28.08.1996 for Fish and Fish products. The firm requested to revalidate the same for a further period of six months from the date of endorsement of revalidation of the Advance Licence. As per the report received from RLA, it is observed that at the time of revalidation, the firm was requested to accept the reduced quantity of vitamin mixes i.e. from 227 kgs to 27 kgs, but the firm has not accepted the same and thus the request of the firm was not considered at that time. Thereafter, the firm have not submitted the application for revalidation, but they have submitted the request for waiver and accordingly the waiver was granted on 14.6.1999 by revalidating their licence for a period of twelve months from the date of expiry of the licence (i.e. total thirty months period from the date of issue of license). Since the revalidation has already been granted upto 30 months and there is no provision of revalidation after 30 months from the date of issue of licence, the committee decided not to accede to the request of the firm. Thus, it is evident that the claim of the first respondent was rejected, since they have not accepted the reduced quantity of vitamin mixes fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked to do so, after such a long period. 12.Therefore, it is obvious that the first respondent has not complied with the advice of the appellant authorities to verify the consumption of vitamin mixes in their resultant product as revised vide SALC circular No.5/98-99 dated 21.1.1999 and hence, the request of the first respondent for revalidation based on the subsequent public notice dated 31.03.2001, could not be considered and the same was rightly rejected by the appellant authorities. Without taking note of this vital factor, the learned Judge erred in allowing the writ petitions and directing the appellants to revalidate the licences of the first respondent. 13.It may not be out of sight to point out here that when the order of the learned Judge was placed for action, the Policy Relaxation Committee in its meeting No.41/AM12 dated 21.02.2012, decided that the said order was not feasible for compliance. The said minutes are extracted below for ready reference: Case No.21. M/s.Vishal Exports Overseas Limited, F.No.01/85/162/066/am12/DES-VI/PC-4 PRC Meeting No.41/AM12 dated: 21.02.2012 Subject: The Hon'ble Madras High Court vide common ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02 filed by you. The Hon'ble High Court ordered: In the result the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are quashed and the respondents are directed to revalidate their licences in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs . 2.There is no provision in the current Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) to allow a revalidation of licences pertaining to the period 1996 1997. As per the present policy, the revalidation of licences can be done as per paragraph 2.13 of the Hand Book of Procedure Volume 1 (HBP V 1) which is reproduced below: 2.13. RA concerned may revalidate import Authorisation on merits, for six months from date of expiry of validity. However, Export Licence may only be revalidated by R.A. concerned on recommendation of DGFT for six months at a time and maximum upto 12 months from date of expiry of validity. 2.13.1 However, revalidation of freely transferable Authorization / Duty credit scrips and stock and sale Authorization shall not be permitted unless validity has expired while in custody of customs authority/RA. 2.13.2 Such revalidation (under 2.13 and 2.13.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said requirement, their request for revalidation was rejected by the appellant authorities. Such orders were based on the decisions of the two committees, viz., ALC and PRC, pursuant to the executive instructions given by the authority concerned, cannot be interfered with by the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the settled law that when the authorities are having sufficient reasons to have such a policy decision to impose certain conditions in the circular, power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a decision. It has been repeatedly held that courts will not ordinarily interfere with such decisions, when the same are taken in the public interest. In this connection, it will be useful to refer to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) Parisons Agrotech Private Limited and another v. Union of India Others [2015 (9)SCC 657] : 14. No doubt, the writ court has adequate power of judicial review in respect of such decisions. However, once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the four corners of Article 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers.' 19. We would also like to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Premier Tyres Limited v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (1993 Supp. 2 SCC 146) wherein this Court held that when a policy decision is taken in the public interest, Courts need not tinker with the same. (ii) RDB Textiles Ltd. v. CCE [(2018) 14 SCC 42]: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
