https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80857 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. en-us Thu, 06 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80857 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. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 06 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80857