REP licence transfers under identical import policy provisions remain bound by the Supreme Court's earlier interpretation, but later restrictive amendments change the result.

The Supreme Court's construction of the REP licence provisions in Oswal Woollen Mills bound all similarly situated transferees under the 1981-82 Import Policy, because Paragraphs 138(1) and 140 were interpreted on their text and the law declared under Article 141 could not be confined by circular. The same ratio applied to the materially identical 1980-81 policy, where the corresponding paragraphs showed no relevant difference. It did not apply to the 1982-83 policy, because the scheme was materially altered by restrictive words in Paragraph 138(1) and related changes to Paragraph 140, so entitlement had to be examined under that later policy on its own terms.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Supreme Court decision in Oswal Woollen Mills was confined only to the parties in that case or applied generally to transferees of REP licences under the Import Policy, 1981-82; (ii) whether the same ratio applied to transferees of REP licences under the Import Policy, 1980-81; (iii) whether the same ratio applied to transferees of REP licences under the Import Policy, 1982-83.

Issue (i): Whether the Supreme Court decision in Oswal Woollen Mills was confined only to the parties in that case or applied generally to transferees of REP licences under the Import Policy, 1981-82.

Analysis: The relevant provisions showed that Paragraph 138(1) of the Import Policy, 1981-82 granted special import facilities to manufacturer exporters, while Paragraph 140 permitted transfer of REP licences. The earlier Supreme Court ruling had construed those provisions and rejected the attempt to read into Paragraph 138(1) a condition limiting the facility only to the actual exporter whose goods were exported. The ruling was based on the text of the policy and on the absence of the restrictive words in the 1981-82 policy. Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court binds all authorities, and the respondents could not confine that decision to the individual case by circular.

Conclusion: The decision applied generally to all transferees of REP licences under the Import Policy, 1981-82, subject to fulfilment of other applicable conditions.

Issue (ii): Whether the same ratio applied to transferees of REP licences under the Import Policy, 1980-81.

Analysis: Paragraph 131(1) of the Import Policy, 1980-81 corresponded materially to Paragraph 138(1) of the Import Policy, 1981-82, and Paragraph 133 corresponded to Paragraph 140. The Court found no material difference between the two sets of provisions. Since the earlier Supreme Court ruling turned on the identical language of the special facility and transfer provisions, the same reasoning governed transferees under the 1980-81 policy as well.

Conclusion: The ratio of Oswal Woollen Mills applied equally to transferees of REP licences under the Import Policy, 1980-81.

Issue (iii): Whether the same ratio applied to transferees of REP licences under the Import Policy, 1982-83.

Analysis: The 1982-83 policy materially changed the scheme. Paragraph 138(1) specifically inserted the restrictive words requiring exports of products manufactured by the exporter, and Paragraph 140 was also altered. The transferable REP licence under that policy was confined to the items permitted against the relevant export product, while the special facilities under Paragraph 138 were linked to non-transferable licences and were no longer transferable in the same manner as under the earlier policies.

Conclusion: The ratio of Oswal Woollen Mills did not apply to transferees of REP licences under the Import Policy, 1982-83.

Final Conclusion: The impugned circulars could not defeat the binding effect of the Supreme Court ruling for the 1981-82 regime, and the same reasoning extended to the materially identical 1980-81 policy, but not to the altered 1982-83 policy; individual entitlement still required examination by the competent authorities on the facts of each case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant import policy provisions are materially identical, a Supreme Court construction of those provisions binds all similarly situated transferees, but a later policy that expressly introduces a restrictive condition changes the legal position and excludes reliance on the earlier ratio.

---