LexP.T.R EXPORTS (MADRAS) PVT. LTD. AND ORS. versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A P.T.R. EXPORTS (MADRAS) PVT. LTD. AND ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MAY 9, 1996 B [K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.j Foreign Trade Development Regulation Act, 1992 : Export and Import Policy 1994-95-Export policy for readymade gar- C ments-New Export policy introduced w.e.f J. /. 1996 withdrawing previous policy-Writ petitions challenging change in the policy dismissed by High Cowt-Appeaf-He/d, power to lay policy by executive decision or by legisla- tion includes power to withdraw the same unless in the fonner case it is by ma/a fide exercise of power or the decision or action taken is in abuse of power, and in such an event it is for the applicant to plead and prove to the D satisfaction of the Court that refusal was vitiated by these factorS"-An ap- plicant has no vested right to have expo1t or in1port licence in tenns of the policies in force at the date of his niaking application--Granting of licence depends upon the policy prevailing on the date of grant of the licence-High Court was right in holding that Govenunent is not bamd by the promises or E legitimate expectations from evolving new policy. Administrative Law : Doct1ine of legitimate expectation-Held, plays no role when the ap- propriate authority is empowered to take a decision by an executive policy or F under law. Union of India v. Inda-Afghan Agencies, [1968) 2 SCR 366, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) G Nos. 11050-55 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.3.96 of the Madras High Court in W.P. Nos. 14490-91 and 17842/95 and 147, 917 and 919 of 1996. C.S. Vaidyanathan, K.S. Gnansambandam and M.A. Krishnamoorthy H for the Petitioners. 662 -- ' • P.T.R. EXPORTS (MAD.) (P) LTD. v. U.O.l. 663 The following Order of the Court was delivered : A These special leave petitions arise from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated March 7, 1996 made in writ petition Nos. 17490 and batch and 147/96 and batch. The admitted facts and that the petitioners are exporters of rcadymade garments to B diverse countries. The export and import is governed by Foreign Trade Development Regulations Act, 1992. The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce evolved 1992-93 Export and Import Policy declaring that the expOrt policy to augn1ent productivity, modernization and competitiveness of the Indian agriculture industry and service. For the year 1994-95, export policy for the readymade garments was notified in notification No. l-29-93 C dated September 4, 1993. The policy classified allotment under heads, namely, (a) Past Performance Entitlement (for short, 'PPE'); (b) Manufac- turer Export Entitlement (for short, 'MEE'); and (c) Non-quota Exporters Entitlement (for short, 'NQE'), The Uruguay round of negotiations of the GATT received final approval of the negotiations incorporating separate D agreements to diverse sectors including the Textile and Clothing sector. The latter is known as the Agreement on Textile and Clothing (ATC). Thereunder, the Government of India con1mitted to phase-out incentives to quota by December, 2004 and planned to introduce changes in quota also w.e.f. January l, 2005. The goal thereby sought to be achieved that an exporter, whether in India or abroad, would export garments ot any other E part of the world without any quota restrictions for providing right environ- ment for textile and clothing exporters to be ready to achieve the goal. Consequently, new export policy from ATC w.e.f. January 1, 1996 was introduced withdrawing the previous policy referred to hereinbefore. It was initially notified on November 28, 1995 announcing total change in the F garment quota policy, the allotment for MEE and NQE system was thereby totally withdrawn under the new policy. The new policy envisages only two methods, namely, (i) Past Performance Entitlement (PPE) 80%; and (ii) First Come, First Serve (FCFS) 20%. The petitioners have challenged this change in the policy in the High Court on three grounds one of which is promissory estoppel on legitimate expectation. The High Court in the G impugned judgment negatived all the three contentions. Thus, these special leave petitions. Shri Vaidyanathan, learned counsel, contended that the Government had promised to grant MEE and NQE quotas for those who upto date H 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A their quality of products by purc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.