Import licence cannot be retrospectively amended against importer without hearing; confiscation based on such alteration is unsustainable.

An import licence could not be retrospectively amended to the importer's detriment because the Foreign Trade Act and Rules did not confer express or implied power for such alteration, and the statutory scheme did not support unsettling completed commercial arrangements. Any material change to licence conditions also required notice and an opportunity of hearing, since the licence created valuable rights and no express exclusion of natural justice existed. Confiscation of goods imported under the licence was unsustainable where the imports complied with the licence as issued and no unmet condition was shown. The impugned notice and order were quashed and rights under the original licence restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the licensing authority had jurisdiction to retrospectively amend an import licence. (ii) Whether such amendment could be made without giving the importer an opportunity of hearing. (iii) Whether confiscation proceedings for goods imported under the licence were legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the licensing authority had jurisdiction to retrospectively amend an import licence.

Analysis: The licensing power under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 enabled grant, refusal, suspension, cancellation and amendment of licences, but no express or implied authority was shown for altering a licence with retrospective effect. The Court treated such a power as incompatible with the statutory scheme and with the practical consequences of unsettling completed commercial arrangements after import orders had been placed.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment was without jurisdiction and not permissible.

Issue (ii): Whether such amendment could be made without giving the importer an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The import licence created valuable rights and induced financial commitments by the importer. The impugned alteration materially varied the licence to the importer's detriment, yet no notice or opportunity of hearing was given. In the absence of express statutory exclusion, basic fairness and the principles of natural justice required an opportunity before adverse alteration of the licence conditions.

Conclusion: The amendment was vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation proceedings for goods imported under the licence were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The goods had been imported in accordance with the licence as issued, supported by certificates of licit growth from the country of origin. The respondents failed to identify any unmet requirement under the relevant import conditions, and the proceedings were therefore found to be arbitrary and unfair.

Conclusion: The confiscation proceedings were not legally sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned notice and order were quashed, and the importer's rights under the original licence were restored, leaving ancillary monetary claims to be worked out in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of express statutory authority, an import licence cannot be retrospectively amended to the importer's detriment, and any material alteration of such licence conditions must comply with natural justice.

---