Prospective import policy amendment and valid Letter of Authority under Export House licence upheld for prior import.

An amendment to the Import Policy adding palm stearin and palm kernel oil to the banned list was read prospectively because the notice did not clearly express retrospective operation, so an import already made and cleared before the notice could not be invalidated. On the facts recorded, a Letter of Authority holder under an Export House licence was entitled to import the goods, since the licence position and authorisation supported the claimed import entitlement. In light of these findings, the confiscation and penalty were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Public Notice No. 48 dated 9-12-1980 amending the Import Policy for 1980-81 operated retrospectively so as to invalidate an import made and cleared before that date; and (ii) whether a Letter of Authority holder under an Export House licence was entitled to import the goods in question.

Issue (i): Whether Public Notice No. 48 dated 9-12-1980 amending the Import Policy for 1980-81 operated retrospectively so as to invalidate an import made and cleared before that date.

Analysis: The amendment added palm stearin and palm kernel oil to the banned item entry, but the notice did not contain language showing that the change was intended to operate retrospectively. The operative wording indicated that the items were to be added to the existing entry, which supported a prospective reading. The earlier import and clearance had already taken place before the date of the notice, and the authorities cited supported the principle that a policy amendment or similar instrument does not take away rights already accrued unless retrospective operation is clearly expressed.

Conclusion: The amendment was not retrospective and did not apply to the impugned import.

Issue (ii): Whether a Letter of Authority holder under an Export House licence was entitled to import the goods in question.

Analysis: The licensing holder was shown to be an Export House, and the record referred to a Letter of Authority authorising the appellants to import goods against the licence. The Department also accepted that, if these facts were established, the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of the relevant import policy provisions. The finding of transfer recorded by the Collector was not supported on the material noted in the order.

Conclusion: The appellants, as Letter of Authority holders under an Export House licence, were entitled to import the goods on the facts recorded.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment to an import policy or similar control notice operates prospectively unless retrospective effect is clearly expressed, and an import made before such amendment cannot be invalidated by it; where the factual conditions of an Export House licence and valid Letter of Authority are satisfied, the authorised holder may import under the licence.

---