UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus SHREE GANESH STEEL ROLLING MILLS LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 486 · Decided: 17-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
SHREE GANESH STEEL ROLLING MILLS LTD. AND ANR. 
APRIL 17, 19% 
(B.P. JEEVAN REDDY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.J 
Exp01t and Imp01t Po/icy-Issued by the Central Govemment-f'ara 
16-C/ause 16-Hand Book of Procedure 1992-97 issued by Director General, 
Foreign Trade-Para 127, clause (v )-Clarification--'' Date of transfer" 
changed as "date of endor.fement''-Tiie change could not have been brought 
about in the name of c/a1ificatio11-lt could have been done 011/y by way of 
an amendme11t-It was do11e by a public 11otice 011 28.7.94--Questioll of ap-
plying the ame11ded procedure to the instant case-Need not be go11e illlo Six 
months pe1iod'-Ca/culation of-Whether from date of first transfer or last 
transfei--Even if the Period is calculated from date of first transfer, the import 
took place within the period of six month.<-Hence even this question need 
not be gone into. 
Practice & Procedure : 
Interim orders--Is.rne of-Court should provide for necessa1y 
safeguards for Revenue i11 the eve11tuality of the failure of the petiti011er or the 
appellant. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 72% of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.6.94 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.M. No. 4396 of 1994 in C.W. No. 2112 of 1994. 
A. Subba Rau, Ms. Sushma Suri fur the Appellants. 
G .L. Rawal, C.K. Sasi and Kailash Vasdev for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Heard the counsel for the parties. 
Leave granted. 
486 
U.0.1. v. SHREE GANESH STEEL ROLLING MILLS LID. 
487 
This appeal is preferred against an interlocutory order dated 30th A 
May, 1994 made by the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2112 
of 1994. By means of the impugned order the High Court has stayed the 
operation of clause (iii) of para 2 of the Circular dated 19.4.94. 
Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited was granted an advance duty 
free licence on the basis of its application. The grant was made on 28.4.93. 
Tata Iron and Steel Company complied with all the conditions attached to 
the said licence and thereafter applied for endorsement of transferability. 
On 6.9.93 the Director General of Foreign Trade made the endorsement 
of transferability. On 17.12.93 Tata Iron & Steel Company transferred the 
licence in favour of M/s. Ferro Alloys Limited. M/s. Ferro Alloys Limited 
in turn transferred it to Mis. Mohan Ferro Alloys Private Limited, from 
whom the respondent herein (Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Limited) 
purchased it on 1L2.94. The respondents imported goods on the basis of 
B 
c 
the said licence. At that stage an objection was raised by the customs 
authorities that inasmuch as the import was made beyond six months from D 
6.9.93 (date of endorsement of transferability), the import is invalid; ac-
cordingly they refused to clear the goods. At that stage, the respondent 
approached the Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition wherein they 
obtained the impugned interim orders. 
Mr. A Subha Rao, learned counsel for the appellants assailed the E 
impugned order on more than one ground. He snbmitted that clause (v) 
of para 127 of Hand Book of Procedure 1992-97 issued by the D.G.F.T. 
provided (at the relevant time that "Duty free licences on the date of 
transfer shall be valid for the balance period of their validity or six months, 
whichever is more, provided no revalidation has been availed." Since there 
F 
was a doubt with respect to the meaning of the expression 'date of transfer', 
it was clarified by the Directorate through a circular dated 19.4.94 that "the 
automatic extension and validity shall be available with reference to the 
date on which iransferability is endorsed by the endorsing authority" (vide 
clause (iii). The said circular was issued purportedly in exercise of the 
power conferred upon the D.G.F.T. by clause 20 of the Export and Import G 
Policy issued by the Central Government which says that "if any question 
or doubt arises in respect of the interpretation of any provision contained 
in this policy, the said question or doubt shall be referred to the the Chief 
Controller of Imports and Exports and his decision shall be final". (The 
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports has since been designated as the H 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996j SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Director General of Foreign Trade). Counsel further submitted that the 
procedure governing the import and export is issued by the Director 
General of Foreign Trade under para 16 of the afor

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