TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not filed any Appeal as against the said order. In the said decision, the learned Single Judge, after following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.B.International Ltd. vs. Assistant Director General of F.T. [ 1996 (1) TMI 125 - SUPREME COURT ] as well as the Jain Exports (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India [ 1988 (5) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT ], has held that the import policy prevalent at the time of issuance of the licence would apply to goods covered by imports made under that licence and the subsequent change in policy will be of no consequence. In the instant case also, only based on the Public Notice No.84/2009-14 dated 23.07.2010, the clarification dated 23.09.2010 and the Policy Circular No.13 dated 31.01.2011, the petitioner's request for revalidation of the DFIA licences, which are the subject matter of the writ petition, have been rejected under the impugned order. Though the petitioner's DFIA licence came into effect on 15.04.2010 itself, the petitioner has been able to utilise the DFIA licence only for few months and thereafter, due to the aforementioned Public Notice dated 23.07.2010, Clarification dated 23.09.2010 and Policy Circular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Industry clarifying that alternative inputs are allowed for import as per SION (Standard Input Output Norms) under the DFIA Scheme. The petitioner has relied upon the following authorities in support of his contention that the import policy prevalent at the time of issuance of the licence would apply to goods covered by imports made under that licence and the subsequent change in policy will be of no consequence: a)An order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hoewitzer Organic Chemical Co. vs. D.G.F.T., New Delhi, reported in 2013 (294) E.L.T. 7 (Mad.) ; b)A judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pushpanjali Floriculture Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in 2016 (340) E.L.T. 32 (P H) ; 2.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, erroneously and by total non application of mind to the settled position of law, the respondents have rejected the petitioner's representation seeking for revalidation of the DFIA licence on the ground that only an actual user can seek for re-validation and also on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish the reasons for delay in approaching th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of FTDR Act, 1992 and FTP (Foreign Trade Policy). 5.With regard to the contention raised by the petitioner that the Public Notice dated 23.07.2010 and the Policy Circular dated 31.01.2011 are only prospective in nature is concerned, the respondents have not rebutted the same in the counter affidavit. 6.Admittedly, no stay of the judgment, passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Pushpanjali Floriculture Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, referred to supra, has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also not in dispute that the decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hoewitzer Organic Chemical Co. vs. D.G.F.T., New Delhi reported in 2013 (294) E.L.T. 7 (Mad.), which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has attained finality as the department has not filed any Appeal as against the said order. In the said decision, the learned Single Judge, after following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.B.International Ltd. vs. Assistant Director General of F.T. Reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.) as well as the Jain Exports (P) Ltd. vs. Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as follows: 4.Mr.Jetly learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the importing question would be governed by the import and export policy applicable for the year AM 91-94 as the import had taken place in June, 1992 i.e. after expiry of AM 1988-91. He submitted that though REP licence was issued when AM 1988-91 was in force, since the import had taken place in June, 1992 the REP licence as well as import made under the REP licence would be governed by the import and export policy in force on the actual date of import and not on the date when the REP licence was issued. Per Contra, Mr.Rana submitted that import would be governed by import export policy AM 1988-91. In support of his submission he referred to and relied upon by a decision of the Supreme Court in Jain Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 173 (S.C.) = 1988 3 SCC 579. In that case, two consignments of natural coconut oil were imported from Srilanka and arrived at port of destination on 22nd September, 1981 and 10th September, 1982 respectively. The import was effected in pursuance of a licence which was issued in the year 1980-81 but the goods were actually imported after the policy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been made: '44.It is seen that the DFIA is issued with a limited validity of 24 months. Due to the actions of the respondents the DFIAs could not be utilised by the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep Exports Ltd., 2004 (9) SCC 128 = 2004 (164) E.L.T. 133 (S.C.), had directed the respondents to issue certificate for the purpose of revalidation of expired licenses due to disputes raised by the department. We are satisfied that due to the impugned invalid notifications, Public Notice/Circulal, licenses could not be utilised by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be expected to present licenses for debit in such circumstances. Therefore, a case for directing revalidation of the licence is also made out. 45.In view of the above discussion, the writ petition of the petitioner is partially allowed in the following terms: (i)Clause 4 of Notification No.31 (RE-2013)/2009- 2014, dated 01.08.2013, Clause 2 of Public Notice No.35 (RE-2013)/2009-2014, dated 30.10.2013 and Clause 3 of Notification No.90 (RE- 2013)/2009-2014, dated 21.08.2014 are struck down. (ii)It is declared that the rest of the said impugned Notification No.31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the petitioner must be given the benefit in accordance with the said decision. 12.This Court has perused and examined the impugned order dated 08.11.2019. As seen from the impugned order, it has been erroneously held that the petitioner has failed to establish the claim for revalidation of the DFIA licences as the petitioner is the holder of freely transferable DFIA licences and the transfer was permissible when the licence was originally issued in the year 2010, which came into effect on 15.04.2010. The reasons given by the respondents for rejecting the petitioner's applications seeking for revalidation are that the petitioner had failed to establish the reasons for delay in approaching the appropriate authorities for consideration of such a request on time. The delay has been properly explained by the petitioner before this Court. The subject Circulars, which were issued subsequent to the transfer of the DFIA licences in favour of the petitioner, were subject matter of challenge before this Court and this Court by its order dated 27.04.2012 in M.P. No.1 of 2012 in W.P. No.24333 of 2012, which was filed by the very same petitioner, has clarified as follows: '10.I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
