M/S. BARAKA OVERSEAS TRADERS versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 873 · Decided: 11-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
MIS. BARAKA OVERSEAS TRADERS 
A 
v. 
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 
[ASHOK BHAN AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992: 
Section 5-Exim Policy-Duty exemption Scheme-Advance /icence-
Transferability-Held, the licences are transferable whether issued under the -C 
'norms' or ' no norms ' category. 
Administrative Law: 
Licence-Rights accrued-New law eriforced in replacement of old 
law-Held, continues to exist unless there is an express or implied inconsistent D 
provision in the new law. 
Under the 'Duty Exemption Scheme' envisaged in the Exim Policy 1997-
2002, import of certain specified input required for the manufacture and 
export of the resultant product was allowed with duty exemption benefits. To 
avail the benefits, the applicant/exporter had to apply for licence with the E 
details of the input requirements. In case the Standard input/output (SION) 
for a particular export product were not already notified at the relevant point 
of time, the application has to be considered by the Advance Licensing 
committee and, if notified, the licences are normally issued by the Licensing 
Authority concerned without making reference to the committee. The F 
appellant had been granted three advance licences for export of 'Fresh Forzen 
Sea foods' including 'Shrimps' and 'PUDS'. 
Against all the three advance licences, the appellant filed three separate 
applications requesting for endorsement of transferability after fulfilment of 
the stipulated export obligation which was not allowed by the Director General G 
of Foreign Trade (DGFT). High Court also dismissed the Writ petition filed 
against the same. Hence, the present appeals. 
It was contended by the respondent that the description of the export 
873 
H 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A items was wrongly shown in the 'no norms category' by the appellant whereas 
it should have been shown in the 'norms category' as it was 'Frozen marine 
products/ frozen meat packed in packing material made out of LDPE/HDPE/ 
PP Card Board other than Ivory Board' and as such the licence granted to 
the appellant was contrary to the circular prevalent whereby the licensing 
authority was advised to issue licences strictly as per the SION in respect of 
B fish and marine products. It, therefore, was further contended that the grant 
of a licence to the appellant does not confer any vested right in its favour if 
the licence has been obtained by misrepresentation. It was also submitted that 
now the new EXIM POLICY 2002-2007 has come into force. 
C 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The Advance licence are transferable whether they are in 
the 'norms category' or in the 'no norms category'. In the absence of any 
proceeding vis-a-vis cancellation of the licences issued to the appellant, if 
they were not validly granted, the respondent wrongly refused the appellant's 
D request for endorsement of transferability. 1877-F-H; 878-B-q 
E 
2.1. Licence once granted, certain rights accrue to the licence holder 
and deprivation of such right without an opportunity of hearing is violation of 
natural justice, the principle applies even when the licensing Authority is of 
the opinion that the licence was obtained by misrepresentation. 1878-DJ 
3.1. Rights that have accrued under the old law continue to exist unless 
there is an express or implied inconsistent provision in the new law. 
1879-Al 
Union of India and Ors. v. Chowgule and Co. Ltd and Ors., (2003) 2 
F sec 641, relied upon. 
G 
'Principle of Statutory Interpretation', Justice G.P. Singh 9th Edn. 
(2004), referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1426 of2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3 .2000 of the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 4755/1999. 
R. Thyagarajan and V. Balachandran for the Appellant. 
Mohan Parasaran, ASG, Harish Chandra, Shreekant and N, Terdal for 
H the Respondent. 
BARAK A OVERSEAS TRADERS"· DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE [MARK A NOEY KATJU. J. J 875 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. This appeal has been filed against the 
impugned judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 
24.3.2000 in Writ Petition No. 4755of1999. 
A 
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
B 
The writ petition was filed in the High Court challenging the order of 
the Director General of Foreign Trade (hereinafter ref

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.