Import entitlement under REP Licences cannot be curtailed by administrative circular where policy preserves pre-existing licences.

An administrative circular could not curtail the import entitlement attached to REP Licences/Exim Scrips issued under the earlier import policy and preserved by the later policy, because the policy contained no restriction distinguishing general and specific endorsements and pre-existing licences remained valid for the permitted imports. The circular could not diminish rights created by the policy framework or render the licences ineffective absent lawful cancellation. The petitioners also had a vested and enforceable right to import raw silk under the licences, supported by the transitional clause and the authorities' prior representation, on which promissory estoppel applied. The circular was quashed and the remaining goods were directed to be released.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned circular could curtail the import entitlement attached to REP Licences/Exim Scrips issued under the earlier import policy and preserved by the later policy; (ii) Whether the petitioners had a vested and enforceable right to import raw silk under the licences notwithstanding the clarification issued by the authorities.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned circular could curtail the import entitlement attached to REP Licences/Exim Scrips issued under the earlier import policy and preserved by the later policy.

Analysis: The earlier policy permitted raw silk to be imported under REP Licences/Exim Scrips, and the later policy expressly provided that licences issued before its commencement would continue to be valid for import or export of the items permitted therein. The circular attempted to impose a restrictive distinction between general and specific endorsements, although the policy itself contained no such limitation and no ambiguity requiring clarification. An administrative circular could not diminish rights flowing from the policy framework and the licences, nor could it render those licences ineffective in the absence of cancellation in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The circular could not lawfully curtail the import entitlement created and preserved by the policy and licences.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners had a vested and enforceable right to import raw silk under the licences notwithstanding the clarification issued by the authorities.

Analysis: The licences remained valid, the goods were covered by the earlier policy, and the transitional clause in the later policy protected pre-existing licences. The authorities' representation that the licences could be used for such imports, coupled with the petitioners' action in purchasing the licences and entering contracts, supported application of promissory estoppel. Since no lawful cancellation or statutory basis for extinguishing the licences was shown, the petitioners' entitlement could not be defeated by a mere clarification.

Conclusion: The petitioners had a vested and enforceable right to import raw silk under the licences.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the circular was quashed, and the authorities were directed to release the remaining goods.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere administrative circular cannot take away or restrict a valid import entitlement preserved by the applicable policy and licences, particularly where the policy contains a transitional clause continuing pre-existing licences and no lawful cancellation of the licences has been made.

---