LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus M/S. CHOWGULE AND CO. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• - UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. M/S. CHOWGULE AND CO. LTD. AND ORS. JANUARY 24, 2003 [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.) Export-Import Policy-Trading houses-Grant of exim scrips/REP licence under new policy for exports made when old policy was ill force-Entitlement A B to 20% premium instead of additional licence as per Circular dated 5. 5. I 993- C Claim rejected by authorities-High Court quashed the rejection order and directed Government to pay 20% premium instead of additional licence-On appeal held, trading houses entitled to additional licence but subject to condition that items imported would be relatable to import policy in force-- Hence High Court right in its direction-Export-Import Policy April, I 988- March, 1991 and April 1990-March, 1993-REP Circular No.11193, 5.5.1993. D Under the Export-Import Policy for April 1988-March 1991, trading houses were eligible for the benefit of additional licences of value defined against the export of processed iron ore under the policy. This policy was terminated and new policy was introduced for April 1990-March 1993. Respondent company recognized as trading house exported processed iron E ore during the period April 1989 to March 1990 and applied for additional licence of a defined value in June 1990. Controller as well as other authorities rejected the claim. A Circular was issued which provided that if applications for gran,t of additional licence are pending in respect of the exports made and export proceeds are realised prior to l.3.1992 then F instead of issuing the licences, 20% premium shall be paid. Respondent claimed 20% premium which was rejected. Aggrieved respondent filed writ petition for quashing of the orders of the authoriti.s and direction to the appellants to pay premium of 20% in terms of the Circular, instead of issuing of additional licence. High Court allowed the petition. Hence the present appeals. G Appellants contended that there was no application from the party pending for entitlement of additional licence as their application was rejected; that the rejection was not contrary to law or null and void or in excess of jurisdiction; that the claim for additional licence in subsequent . 5~ H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R. A year was ineligible under the new policy although that might have been ·~ available under the old policy; and that the respondents had to lodge their right/entitlement to get the additional licence under the new policy for the exports made during the period when the old policy was in force. B Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Export-Import Policy for April 1988-March 1991 (old ) policy) provides that eligibility to the additional licence was to be '-".. determined on the b~sis of the admissible exports made in the preceding licensing year. Transitional arrangements of the policy for April 1990- c March 1993 (new policy) provides that where the applications from export houses/trading houses for additional licences for any of the preceding licensing year, have not been disposed of by the end of the licensing year, licences will be issued as per the relevant policy provisions prevailing during the period to which the additional licences relate. This is subject to the condition that the items which can be imported would be relatable D to the import policy in force, i.e., the new policy. In the instant case application is pending as the controversy is still alive being adjudicated then the licence has to be issued as per the re~evant policy provisions prevailing during the period to which the additional licence relates which .. would be under the old policy. The entitlement of the export houses/trading --I- E houses to get the additional licence has not been taken away. Therefore, under the new policy as well, the export houses/trading houses would remain entitled to the additional licence for the exports made during the period when the old policy was in force however, subject to the condition. Hence there is no infirmity in the order of High Court and is in strict conformity with the Circular 11 of 93 dated 5.5.1993. F 1.2. The submission that respondents had to lodge their right/ .. ~ entitlement to get the additional licence under the new policy for the exports made during the period when the old policy was in force cannot be accepted. The application for the additional licence could be made only after the end of the fisc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.