TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners had satisfied the conditions of the public notice dated 13 August 1979 so as to be entitled to export the goods under the pre-control commitment policy; (ii) Whether the subsequent change in the export policy could govern the pending application for export permission.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioners had satisfied the conditions of the public notice dated 13 August 1979 so as to be entitled to export the goods under the pre-control commitment policy.
Analysis: The relevant policy required proof of a pre-control commitment and advance payment through an authorised dealer covering the full f.o.b. value before the date of the public notice. The documents produced by the petitioners established that the remittance-certificate alterations were made before the public notice and that the remittances covered the consignments in question. The objections based on alleged ante-dating of the contracts, genuineness of the bank documents, non-production of documents within time, and insufficiency of value were found to be unsupported.
Conclusion: The petitioners had complied with the policy conditions and were entitled to consideration of their export application; the refusal could not be sustained.
Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent change in the export policy could govern the pending application for export permission.
Analysis: The application had already been decided under the policy then in force, and the later public notice could not retrospectively control a completed decision. Public notices governing export control were treated as prospective in operation and could not alter the legal position of an application already rejected on the earlier regime.
Conclusion: The later export policy did not affect the petitioners' claim under the earlier public notice.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the interim order permitting export to the limited extent granted by the Single Judge was left undisturbed, with the connected motion also dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where exporters have established compliance with the conditions of a controlling public notice, the licensing authority cannot refuse permission on unsupported suspicions, and a later export policy does not retrospectively govern an application already decided under the earlier regime.
TaxTMI 
