TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e suit cannot be taken away by a subsequent change in law. So far as the argument of promissory estoppel is concerned, it is equally unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Having regard to the nature of the advance licence - import first and export later - there is no room for this argument. The discretion inhering in the authority to take into consideration the exports effected after the date of filing of the application for advance licence does not detract from its essential character, as explained hereinabove. We may also mention that no precise data has been furnished by the appellant in support of the said plea. In the absence of such data, the plea of promissory estoppel is misconceived. Appeal dismissed. - 2379 & 2380 of 1996 - - - Dated:- 24-1-1996 - B.P. Jeevan Reddy and B.N. Kirpal, JJ. [Judgment per : B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.]. - Leave granted. 2.With a view to encourage exports, the Government of India issued the "Export and Import Policy (lst April, 1992 and 31st March, 1997)" introducing inter alia a scheme called "Duty Exemption Scheme" contained in Chapter-VII. Under this scheme, imports of duty free raw materials, components ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Director General of Foreign Trade and Union of India as respondents) is engaged in the export of marine products. It entered into six contracts with certain foreign buyers to supply marine products. These contracts were entered into on 27th May, 4th June, 10th June, 22nd June, 26th June and 27th June, 1992. In respect of these export commitments, the appellant made five applications for advance licences, i.e., on 29th May, 18th June, 24th June, 24th June and 15th September, 1992. [The last mentioned application, we are told, was in respect of Contracts 5 and 6 mentioned above. We are also told that the value of the last two contracts is very substantial as compared to the value of the first four contracts.] The appellant says that by September 25, 1992, the export obligation concerned in the first three applications was fully discharged whereas in respect of the fourth application, it was fulfilled to the extent of 81% and in the case of the last mentioned application, it was fulfilled to the extent of 21%. The advance licences were not issued by September 25, 1992. On that date, a change was effected, as aforesaid, in the value addition norms, enhancing the value addition norm to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port and Import Policy in vogue on that date; the appellant knew that as against the export commitments undertaken by him, he would be entitled to duty free advance licences of a particular value; the price agreed between him and the foreign buyer was arrived at bearing the said consideration in mind; if the Government is permitted to suddenly change the value addition norm to the prejudice of the appellant, it would suffer grievous losses - submitted the learned counsel. Yet another submission urged by the learned counsel is that the authorities cannot take advantage of their own wrong viz., the delay in issuing the advance licences. If they had issued the licences applied for prior to September 25, 1992, the appellant would have obtained licences of a higher value in accordance with the then existing value addition norm. Merely because the authorities have delayed the issuance of licences, they cannot apply the revised norm to the prejudice of the appellant, especially when the appellant is in no way responsible for the said delay. Sri Kapoor submitted that the appellant should be held entitled to advance licences not merely for the actual exports effected by it before September ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular date. If you fail to do so, you will be liable to levy of penalties and other action according to law". The duty free import of raw materials etc. is permitted to enable the exporter to sell his goods abroad at a more competitive price, thereby fetching precious foreign exchange for the country. Mere making of an application does not create any right in the applicant since he has no pre-existing right to such licence. His right is only that which is given by the Policy. The situation could have been different if the Policy had said that a person exporting goods of a particular value shall be entitled to an import licence of a particular value; in such a case, the export of goods can be said to create a right in the applicant to get an import licence of the specified value. Here is a case, where one has to ask for an import licence promising to export goods of a particular value within a particular time. It is difficult to appreciate how can it be said in such a situation that mere filing of an application creates a vested legal right to obtain a licence according to the value addition norm in vogue on the date of the application. It is the date of licence that is relevant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his argument. The discretion inhering in the authority to take into consideration the exports effected after the date of filing of the application for advance licence does not detract from its essential character, as explained hereinabove. We may also mention that no precise data has been furnished by the appellant in support of the said plea. In the absence of such data, the plea of promissory estoppel is misconceived. The appellant has to establish the various ingredients of this rule, as enumerated by this Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh - [1979 (2) SCR 641] and other subsequent decisions. It is not a pure question of law. 12.Now, coming to the argument of the authorities taking advantage of their own wrong viz., delay in issuing the advance licences, it may be noticed that there is no allegation/averment in the writ petition that the authorities have deliberately delayed the issuance of the advance licences. We have mentioned hereinbefore that issuance of these licences is not a formality nor a mere ministerial function but that it requires due verification and formation of satisfaction as to compliance with all the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has no merit." 13.Sri A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the Union of India, brought to our notice certain decisions to which a brief reference would be in order. In Deputy Asstt. Iron and Steel Controller v. L. Manikchand, Proprietor, Katrella Metal Corpn. Madras [1972 (3) SCC 324], the respondent applied for an import licence in December, 1968 for importing stainless steel for the licensing period 1968-69. His registration certificate showed that he was engaged in the manufacture of hospital and surgical instruments and household utensils of stainless steel. In view of the large number of applications for import licences for stainless steel, instructions were issued in January, 1969 that applications should be scrutinised carefully after asking for relevant information from the applicants as to the details of end-products to be manufactured by them. The respondent supplied information in May, 1969 that the hospital requisites proposed to be manufactured by him were surgical bowls, spittoons and trays. The Chief Controller, Exports and Imports, however, issued instructions that only "medical and surgical equipment and appliances" should have priority and not other types of hospi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by mere administrative orders or executive instructions issued at any time". The Court held further : "From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, it is clear that the Import Trade Control Policy (Red Book - Vol. I) had been amended and the import of the materials in question for utilization in the end-products of most `automobile parts' was prohibited as per instructions conveyed by Chief Controller of Imports Exports in his letter No. IPC (Gen. 33)/73/72/3499, dated September 29, 1972 although general notice of this amendment was published later on August 18, 1973 (Vide Annexure R-5). The result was that in accordance with the amended Import Trade Control Policy, the Respondent could not, in November, 1972, grant the licences applied for to the petitioners in respect of the past period, April, 1969-March 1970." The Court reiterated the proposition in Manikchand that "on the basis of an Import Trade Policy an applicant has no absolute right, much less a fundamental right to the grant of an import licence". It is true that both decisions in Manikchand and Andhra Industrial Works dealt with the Import Policy which was not statutory in nature but as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
