Import entitlement under an export house certificate remains subject to later bans, not retrospective canalisation restrictions.

Export House Certificate entitlement under the April 1978 to March 1979 import policy was upheld because the earlier governing decision had already resolved the controversy, making the impugned orders unsustainable and requiring issuance of the certificate with consideration of any timely additional licence application on merits. The Court also held that import entitlement after certification was subject only to bans in force at the time of actual import; later canalisation did not require recourse to a canalising agency where the item was not previously canalised. Delay in disposing of the petition could not prejudice the petitioners, and the writ petition succeeded with the orders quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were entitled to issuance of an Export House Certificate under the Import Policy of April 1978 to March 1979 and consequential relief. (ii) Whether, after issuance of the certificate, the petitioners' import entitlement could be confined by the import policy prevailing on the date of actual import, including later bans or canalisation.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were entitled to issuance of an Export House Certificate under the Import Policy of April 1978 to March 1979 and consequential relief.

Analysis: The controversy was treated as concluded by the prior decision governing the same import policy. On that basis, the impugned orders were held unsustainable and the respondents were directed to issue the Export House Certificate within the time fixed by the Court. A further direction was issued that any application for additional licence made within the stipulated period should be considered on merits.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether, after issuance of the certificate, the petitioners' import entitlement could be confined by the import policy prevailing on the date of actual import, including later bans or canalisation.

Analysis: The Court held that later restrictions could operate only to the extent of items specifically banned under the policy in force at the time of import. Canalised items were distinguished from banned items, and the petitioners were not required to approach the canalising agency merely because a later policy had introduced canalisation where none existed under the earlier policy. The delay in disposal of the petition could not be allowed to prejudice the petitioners.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioners, subject only to later bans operating at the time of actual import.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioners obtained the directed certificate and consequential consideration of their application in accordance with the Court's ruling on the scope of import restrictions.

---