M/S. DARSHAN OILS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. ECT. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 278 · Decided: 08-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. DARSHAN OILS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. ECT. ETC. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 8, 1994 
[J.S. VERMA AND K.S. PARIPOORAN, JJ.] 
Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947-Section 3-lmport and Export 
Policy for period April, 1983 to March, 1984-Public notice amending the 
policy-Import of fatty acids could be made only by State Trading 
Corporation under Open General Licence-Exception limited to actual 
shipment made prior to issue of public notice dated 11.11.1983-Whether 
amendment could be termed unreasonable or unduly restrictive-Held, 
No-Classification between goods in transit and those of which transit had 
not begun-Held: Neither irrational nor unreasonable. 
Administrative Law-Promissory estoppel-Export Import Policy-
Amendment-Applicabi/ity of doctrine of promissory estoppel. 
The Import an:I Export Policy for the period 1.4.1983 to 31.3.1984 
was declared by the Central Government by issue of an order in 
exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Import and Export 
(Control) Act, 1947 giving general permission for Import into India of 
raw materials, components and consumables by actual users 
(industrial) subject to certain conditions. 
Split stear in fatty acids were not a canalised item under that 
Policy. The appellants entered into a contract with a foreign supplier 
for import of fatty acids and on 3.10.1983 opened an irrevocable letter 
of credit in favour of the foreign supplier. On 11.11.1983, the Central 
Government issued a public notice amending the said Policy whereby 
the import of fatty acids became a canalised item. The only exception 
made for import of the canalised items under import licences already 
issued was in respect of the shipments already effected from the 
country of origin before the date of said amendment. The shipment of 
fatty acids by appellants, not being covered by the exception made in 
the amendment and the import being not through the State Trading 
Corporation, the appellant was denied the benefit of its import being 
covered by the Policy prior to its amendment. 
278 
DARSHAN OILS (P) LTD. v. U.0.1 
279 
A writ petition filed in the High Court challenging the amendment A 
made by the public notice dated 11.11.1983 was dismissed. Hence, this 
appeal. 
Appellants submitted that an irrevocable letter of credit having 
been opened by the appellant in favour of foreign supplier on 3.10.1983 
prior to amendment of the Policy, it was not feasible for the appellants B 
to prevent the shipment of the goods thereafter and, therefore, not 
extending the benefit of exception to such cases also, confining the 
exception only to actual shipments made prior to issue of public notice 
dated 11.11.1983, was unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the 
Constitution of India. It was also submitted that amendment 9f the C 
Import Policy by issue of a public notice could be only prospective, but 
in this manner it had been made retrospective. 
The respondent contended that the only consequence of the 
amendment was an increase in the tax which was not violative of 
Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD 1.1 The entitlement to import items which were canalised 
or not, is governed by the Import Policy prevalent at the time of E 
import. In the present case, the import of a canalised item being made 
after amendment of the Policy by the public notice dated 11.11.1983 in 
a manner not permitted by the amended Policy, the appellant cannot 
claim to avoid the logical consequences of the import being made 
contrary to the Import Policy prevailing at the time of Import of the 
goods. Exemption under the amended Policy being limited to shipment F 
already made cannot be termed unreasonable or unduly restrictive. 
Obviously, the exception was made to cover only those goods of which 
the shipment had been made and were in transit, excluding all such 
goods of which no shipment had been made. The classification between 
goods in transit and those of which the transit had not begun, cannot be G 
called irrational or unreasonable in the context. (283-E-F) 
D. Navinachandra and Co. Anr Etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1987) 
2 SCR 9~?" relied on and Mis Universal Imports Agency and Anr v. Chief 
Controller of Imports and Exports and Ors, (1981) 1 SCR 305 
distinguished. 
H 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. Doctrine of promissory estoppel is inapplicable in the facts and 
circumstan

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