Import policy compliance controls endorsed licences where current policy does not permit the goods, and the notice was upheld.

Import entitlement under an earlier endorsed licence had to satisfy both the policy in force when the endorsement was granted and the current import policy at the time of import. The Court treated goods falling outside what the current policy permitted as covered by the expression "specifically banned", even if not expressly prohibited in specie. The distinction between additional licences and imprest licences did not change that principle, because the controlling question remained whether the current policy allowed import of the goods. On that basis, the challenge to the show cause notice failed and the notice was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice rejecting clearance of the imported goods was valid on the ground that the goods were not covered by the endorsed licence and fell within items specifically banned under the current import policy.

Analysis: The licence endorsement obtained under the earlier policy could not be read in isolation. The controlling principle applied was that import entitlement had to satisfy both the earlier policy under which the endorsement was granted and the current import policy prevailing at the time of import. The Court treated the expression "specifically banned" as not confined merely to items expressly prohibited in specie, but as extending to goods which were not importable under the current policy. The distinction sought to be drawn between additional licences and imprest licences did not alter that principle, because the operative question remained whether the current policy permitted the import. Since the goods fell within a category not permitted under the current policy, the challenge to the show cause notice could not succeed.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was upheld and the petition was rejected.

---