Retrospective import policy changes cannot defeat imprest licence entitlements earned under an earlier policy.

Goods imported under an imprest licence issued with a replenishment endorsement under an earlier import policy remained entitled to clearance despite a later canalisation restriction. The later policy change could not be applied retrospectively to defeat import entitlement already earned on fulfilment of the export obligation, so the refusal to clear the goods was unlawful. A later Supreme Court decision was distinguished because it turned on special wording absent from the licence in question, and the policy amendment was treated as operating prospectively only.

---

---

Issues: Whether clearance of goods imported under an imprest licence could be refused on the basis of a subsequent import policy that introduced a canalisation restriction.

Analysis: The licence and the replenishment endorsement were issued under the earlier import policy and expressly governed the import entitlement earned on fulfilment of the export obligation. The later policy change could not be applied retrospectively so as to defeat that entitlement. The reliance on the later Supreme Court decision was distinguished on the ground that it proceeded on special wording not present in the licence in question, while the import policy change was held to operate prospectively only.

Conclusion: The refusal to clear the goods was illegal and the petitioner was entitled to clearance and consequential relief.

---