Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. VERMA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.
M/s. Darshan Oils Pvt. Ltd. and another, Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7153 with 7154 and 7155 of 1994 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 20837 of 1993 with 13040 and 14337 of 1994)
Decided on 8-11-1994.
WITH
M/s. Bombay Soap Factory and another, Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
AND
M/s. Vee Kay Oils Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Constitution Of india,1950 - Articles 14 - Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 - Section 3 - Import and Export Policy - Shipment of fatty acids in present case - Amended Policy effective from made it clear that import of fatty acids was not allowed thereafter even any import license already issued "except against shipments from country of origin already effected before date of this public notice - In other words only exception made for import of canalized items under import licenses already issued was in respect of shipments already effected from country of origin before date of said amendment that is of shipments of which transit had already commenced from country of origin - Shipment in question arrived at Bombay on and it is not appellant’s case that this shipment falls within exception indicated above - This being so shipment of fatty acids in present case not being covered by exception made in amendment to Policy effective from and import being not through State Trading Corporation appellant has been denied benefit of its import being covered by policy prior to its amendment – Held, Court are unable to accept submissions of counsel for appellants - These submissions are merely different facets of doctrine of promissory estoppels which has been held inapplicable in such situation - In Trading which related to withdrawal of exemption from payment of duty etc in exercise of statutory powers it was reiterated that power to exempt includes power to modify or withdraw that benefit and liability to pay duty Customs arises when taxable event occurs being subject to payment of duty as prevalent on date of entry of goods - It was held that doctrine of promissory estoppels could not be invoked to question withdrawal of notification issued Section Customs Act when it was done in public interest - Equities have to be balanced and public interest must outweigh individual interest Trading clearly holds that withdrawal of such benefit can be made in public interest during period for which benefit had earlier been intended in our opinion this is sufficient to indicate fallacy inherent in submissions made on behalf of appellant - Clearly held that entitlement to import items which were canalized or not is governed by Import Policy prevalent at time of importing present case import of canalized item being made after amendment of Policy by public notice in manner not permitted by amended Policy appellants cannot claim to avoid logical consequences of import being made contrary to Import Policy prevailing at time of import of goods - Exemption under amended Policy being limited to shipments already made cannot be termed unreasonable or unduly restrictive - Obviously exception was made to cover only those goods of which shipment had been made and were in transit excluding all such goods of which no shipment had been made - Classification between goods in transit and those of which transit had not begun cannot be called irrational or unreasonable in context - Reliance by Harish Salve on decision - Universal Imports Agency - Chief Controller of Imports and Exports which deals with meaning of expression things done a general sense is misplaced - In present case Language of exception made in amended Import Policy is clear and unequivocal excluding from its ambit all such goods except those in transit because of shipment having already been made - That decision does not therefore require any further consideration - Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT
VERMA, J. :- Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
Civil Appeal No. 7153 of 1994 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 20837 of 1993).
2. The Import and Export Policy for the period 1-4-1993 to 31-3-1994 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 which included the follwing :-
"22. Items convered under Part-III of the Schedule to this licence can be imported under OGL by Actual Users (Industrial) and others, for stock and sale;"
"26. Such goods are shipped on through consignment to India on or before 31st March, 1984 or, in the case of Actual Users (Industrial) on or about 30th June; 1984 against confirmed orders for which irrevocable letters of credit are opened and established on or about 29-2-1984 with no grace period whatsoever."
3. Split stearin 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 on 1-8-1983 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 for the period April 1983 to March 1984 whereby the import of fatty acids became a canalised item. The amendment clearly provided that import of fatty acids could be made only by the State Trading Corporation under Open General Licence and therein it was stated as under :-
"3. Import of items referred to in para 2 of this public notice shall not be allowed under any import licence already issued or under paras 31,34,37,38,138,148 and 203 of the Import and Export Policy, 1983-84 or under any other provision of the Import and Export Policy 1983-84, except against shipments from the country of origin already effected before the date of this public notice. This restriction will not, however, apply to the imports by STC of India Ltd."
(Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the amended Policy effective from -11-11-1983 made it clear that import of fatty acids was not allowed thereafter even under any import licence already issued "except against shipments from the country of origin already effected before the date of this public notice." In other words, 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, that is, of shipments of which transit had already commenced from the country of origin. The shipment in question arrived at Bombay on 9-2-1984 and it is not the appellants case that this shipment falls within the exception indicated above. This being so, the shipment of fatty acids in the present case, not being covered by the exception made in the amendment to the Policy effective from 11-11-1984 and the import being not through the State Trading Corporation, the appellant has been denied the benefit of its import being covered by the policy prior to its amendment.
4. The appellants filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the amendment made by the public notice dated 11-11-1983. That writ petition having been dismissed, this appeal has been filed by special leave.
5. The challenge to the public notice dated 11-11-1983 by the appellants in the High Court was based mainly on the doctrine of promissory estoppel which has been rejected by the High Court. A similar challenge on the ground of promissory estoppel has been rejected by this Court in Kanishka Trading etc. v. Union of India (C.A. Nos. 4336 etc. of 1994 decided on 19-10-1994). Accordingly, decision of the Delhi High Court in Kaptans Enterprises v. Union of India, AIR 1986 Delhi 221 cannot furnish any support to the appellants in the present case. Shri Harish Salve, learned counsel fo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
