Supreme Court clarifies binding effect of judgments, directs issuance of Export House Certificates

The Supreme Court of India reiterated the binding effect of previous court judgments on all parties, regardless of their direct involvement. The Court clarified the entitlement to Export House Certificates, directing the Government to issue them to exporters wrongfully denied. Importation of items, including canalised ones, was allowed except for banned items. The Court emphasized that government letters contrary to its directions were irrelevant. The Court denied interim orders sought and disposed of the applications without costs, underscoring the importance of adherence to legal directions over conflicting government communications.

---

---

Issues: Interpretation of previous court judgments and their binding effect, entitlement to Export House Certificates, clearance of goods based on court decisions, clarification on importation of canalised items, validity of government letters in light of court directions.

In this judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, the Court addressed the issue of the binding effect of previous court judgments on parties not directly involved in those proceedings. The Court emphasized that decisions of the Court laying down legal positions are binding on all parties, regardless of whether they were parties to the original proceedings or served with notices. The Court referred to specific cases like Raj Prakash's case and Indo Afghan Chamber of Commerce's case to support this principle.

Regarding the entitlement to Export House Certificates, the Court discussed a case where the Government wrongfully refused to grant these certificates to exporters who had not diversified their exports. The Court, following decisions of various High Courts, held that such refusal was incorrect. The Court directed the Government to issue necessary Export House Certificates within a specified timeframe and allowed importation of items except those specifically banned under the prevalent import policy at the time of import.

The judgment also clarified the importation of canalised items, stating that both canalised and non-canalised items were covered within the ambit of the Court's order. The Court highlighted that a subsequent letter by the government, not in line with the Court's direction, did not affect the binding nature of the Court's decision or create any estoppel. The Court deemed such letters irrelevant in determining the government's understanding of the matter.

In conclusion, the Court refused the interim order prayed for in the applications before it and disposed of the applications without any orders as to costs. The judgment serves as a reminder of the binding nature of court decisions, the entitlement to Export House Certificates, and the clarification on importation rules, emphasizing the importance of following legal directions issued by the Court despite any conflicting government communications.

---