https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81368 Entitlement to an additional import licence was held to arise from exports made under the policy then in force, so a later amendment to the Import & Export Policy, 1990-1993 could not retrospectively withdraw benefits already attached to completed exports. The court treated admissibility under Para 220(1) as governed by the policy prevailing at the time of export and recognised a vested entitlement that later insertion of the product in Appendix 12 could not defeat by implication. It further held that notices, suspension, and proposed cancellation were invalid because they were issued without the procedural foundation required by Clauses 9 and 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 and without any sustainable basis of fraud, misrepresentation, or other lawful ground. en-us Mon, 22 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:26:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81368 Entitlement to an additional import licence was held to arise from exports made under the policy then in force, so a later amendment to the Import & Export Policy, 1990-1993 could not retrospectively withdraw benefits already attached to completed exports. The court treated admissibility under Para 220(1) as governed by the policy prevailing at the time of export and recognised a vested entitlement that later insertion of the product in Appendix 12 could not defeat by implication. It further held that notices, suspension, and proposed cancellation were invalid because they were issued without the procedural foundation required by Clauses 9 and 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 and without any sustainable basis of fraud, misrepresentation, or other lawful ground. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 22 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81368