Import policy extension requires express provision; prior licence could not be used during the policy interregnum.

The earlier import policy did not confer any automatic extension for imports made between 1 April 1983 and 15 April 1983 after expiry of the 1982-83 policy. Although the petitioners had obtained an additional licence and had taken steps to import before expiry, neither the public notice, any notification, nor the 1983-84 policy extended the licence period expressly. In the absence of such express provision, the petitioners could not claim the benefit of the earlier policy for the interregnum, and the confiscation challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the earlier import policy for the period between 1 April 1983 and 15 April 1983 in the absence of any express provision extending the validity of the additional import licence.

Analysis: The petitioners had obtained an additional licence and had taken steps towards import before the expiry of the 1982-83 policy. However, neither the public notice nor any other notification, nor the subsequent import policy for 1983-84, contained any provision for automatic extension of time to import on an additional licence during the interregnum between the expiry of the old policy and the announcement of the new policy. In the absence of an express extension, the petitioners could not claim the benefit of the earlier policy for that period.

Conclusion: The challenge to the confiscation order failed, and the petitioners were not entitled to import the goods under the earlier policy for the disputed period.

---