Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 26.06.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No 286/1996, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition by holding that the appellant shall not be entitled to the benefit of additional licence on the export of processed iron ore during the period April, 1990 to March, 1991, the exporter has preferred the present appeal.
There was an amendment in Appendix 12 and the list of ineligible items which earlier was “Minerals and ores – unprocessed”, in the new Appendix 12, it was stated to be “Minerals and ores”. The appellant applied to the Assistant Chief Controller of Imports and Exports for grant of additional licence for value of Rs.6,08,46,000/- against FOB value of export of processed iron ore amounting to Rs.52,00,51,848/- for the year 1990-91.
3
The appellant preferred an appeal challenging the order dated 30.04.1993 before the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, which was rejected on 2.9.1993. The High Court, by judgment and order dated 30.01.2001, allowed the said writ petition and quashed and set aside the order of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade dated 12.01.1996 denying the benefit of additional licence and directed the department to pay to the appellant the premium of Rs.1,21,69,200/-. 5
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-enhanced-tuition-fee-in-private-medical-colleges/
By judgment and order dated 04.04.2007, this Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and remitted the matter to the High Court by observing that the point as to whether the appellant was ineligible for grant of additional/special licence as per Appendix 12 attached to Import and Export Policy from April 1990 to March 1993 was not examined either by the High Court or by the first appellate authority and the high Court failed to consider the effect of Appendix 12 of the Policy of April 1990-March 1993.
1 Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the issue essentially is with regard to the appellant’s claim for grant of additional licence under the Exim Policy 1998-91 based on eligible export of “processed iron ore” in the preceding years. It is submitted that however when the appellant was engaged in making export of “processed iron ore” in the subsequent year, there was a change in the policy before the expiry of period of three years during which 1988-91 policy was solemnly declared to remain in force and the same came to be substituted by Exim Policy 1990-93. 4
It is further submitted that applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of grant of additional licence on the export of the “processed iron ore”. Venkataraman, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the respondents, while supporting the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and while supporting the orders passed by the Director General, Foreign Trade, denying the benefit of additional licence to the appellant, has vehemently submitted that the denial of the additional licence is absolutely in consonance with the Exim Policy 1990- 93.
It is submitted that under the Exim Policy 1990-93, as per Appendix 12, “processed iron ore” was in the excluded category and in the category of ineligible items. Once, it is held that the appellant is not entitled to additional licence on export of “processed iron ore”, the appellant shall not be entitled to the benefit of additional licence as claimed, which otherwise is not entitled to on merits. However, when the new Exim Policy 1990-93 came into existence, as observed hereinabove, the “Minerals and Iron Ore” are in the list of ineligible items – the appellant had actually exported “processed iron ore” during the period April, 1990 to March, 1991, which was under the regime of new Exim Policy 1990- 93 and as observed hereinabove under the new Exim Policy 1990-93, the export of “Minerals and Iron Ore” are included in the list of ineligible items, the appellant has been denied the benefit of additional licence.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
Therefore, in the absence of any challenge to the new Exim Policy 1990-93 under which on export of “Minerals and Iron Ore”, there shall not be the benefit of additional licence, the new Exim Policy 1990-93 shall be applicable.
However, when the new Exim Policy 1990-93 is held to be applicable under which on export of ‘Minerals and Iron Ore”, there shall not be any benefit of additional licence, the appellant cannot be permitted to claim the benefit of additional licence under the old Exim Policy, which was not in existence.
Case Title: CHOWGULE & COMPANY LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE (2022 INSC 1166)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008225-008225 / 2009
