Import rights under earlier licence conditions could not validate banned goods; bona fide reliance and special factual relief failed.

An earlier export house/import-rights order was confined to items not specifically banned under the prevailing import policy, so later import of a canalised or banned item was not authorised. Claimed bona fide reliance on departmental communications did not override the Court's settled interpretation, and a prior special relief order was limited to its own facts, including pre-cutoff irrevocable letters of credit, and was not a precedent. The confiscation order was restored, Tribunal relief was set aside, and Revenue succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order granting additional import rights under the earlier export house certificate regime permitted import of canalised or banned items under the later import policy. (ii) Whether the importer could claim protection on the basis of bona fide reliance on departmental communications or on the special relief earlier granted in another case.

Issue (i): Whether the order granting additional import rights under the earlier export house certificate regime permitted import of canalised or banned items under the later import policy.

Analysis: The earlier order was held to be clear that additional licence holders could import only those items not specifically banned under the prevailing import policy at the time of import. That construction had already been authoritatively clarified, and the item in question was admittedly banned under the import policy then in force. The import therefore did not satisfy the conditions attached to the earlier order.

Conclusion: The import of the canalised item was not authorised under the earlier order read with the applicable import policy.

Issue (ii): Whether the importer could claim protection on the basis of bona fide reliance on departmental communications or on the special relief earlier granted in another case.

Analysis: The claimed bona fide reliance could not override the clear legal position settled by the Court. Internal departmental views or communications could not prevail against the Court's interpretation. The earlier relief granted in the other matter was confined to its special facts, particularly imports backed by irrevocable letters of credit opened before the cutoff date, and was expressly not treated as a precedent. The present contract was entered into after that cutoff and therefore did not qualify for similar protection.

Conclusion: The importer was not entitled to relief on the basis of bona fide reliance or the earlier special-order exception.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order was restored, the Tribunal's relief was set aside, and the Revenue succeeded in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier judicial order allowing imports is expressly limited to items not specifically banned under the prevailing import policy, later imports of banned or canalised items cannot be legitimised by contrary departmental understanding or by relief granted on special facts in another case.

---