TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of SSI exporter in EHC validity case, bars retrospective policy changes.</h1> <h3>NATH BROS. EXIM INTERNATIONAL LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> NATH BROS. EXIM INTERNATIONAL LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 437 (Del.) Issues Involved:1. Issuance of Export House Certificate (EHC)2. Validity of the EHC3. Application of Promissory Estoppel4. Public Interest and Policy Changes5. Legitimate ExpectationIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Issuance of Export House Certificate (EHC):The petitioner, a Small Scale Industry (SSI) registered exporter, held an Export House Certificate (EHC) valid until March 31, 1990, under the Long Term Import-Export Policy 1985-88. Upon expiration, the petitioner applied for renewal under the 1988-91 policy, which was initially granted for one year instead of the requested three years. The petitioner challenged this decision, seeking an EHC valid until March 31, 1993.2. Validity of the EHC:The petitioner argued that under the 1988-91 policy, they were entitled to a three-year EHC renewal. However, the policy was changed on March 30, 1990, reducing the renewal period to one year. The petitioner contended that such a midstream policy change was illegal and invalid, as it could not be applied retrospectively to their detriment.3. Application of Promissory Estoppel:The petitioner invoked the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, asserting that they had altered their position based on the promise of a stable policy for 1988-91. The Supreme Court's judgments in M/s. Navinchandra's case and Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Union of India were cited, where it was held that no estoppel arises against the Government if the policy change is in public interest. However, the petitioner argued that the Government's promise of a stable policy induced them to make business decisions, and the retrospective policy change was inequitable.4. Public Interest and Policy Changes:The respondents argued that the Government reserved the right to amend policies in public interest, as stated in para 1(2) of the 1988-91 policy. The Committee held that the Central Government's power to change the Import-Export policy was upheld by the courts, provided it was in public interest. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Bansal Exports (P) Ltd. v. Union of India emphasized that promissory estoppel is subservient to public interest.5. Legitimate Expectation:The petitioner also relied on the rule of legitimate expectation, arguing that the 1988-91 policy created an expectation of stability and continuity, entitling them to a three-year EHC. The respondents countered that the Government's representations must be clear and unambiguous, and the petitioner had notice of the policy change.Conclusion:The court held that the Government could not retrospectively change the policy to the petitioner's detriment. The petitioner was entitled to the EHC for the full three years as initially promised. The petition was allowed, and the impugned 1990-93 policy was quashed to the extent it operated retrospectively. The respondents were directed to issue the EHC valid until March 31, 1993.
TaxTMI 