https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44340 Where the holder of a freely transferable import licence itself sought cancellation after the licence was lost, the cancellation could not be attacked as lacking a separate hearing, and the prohibition on issuing a duplicate licence did not assist the petitioner because a duplicate was no longer required. However, since the licence was lost without evidence of misuse and the validity period expired during the writ proceedings, equity justified grant of a fresh licence for the balance period on the same terms as the original. The petitioner was therefore entitled to a fresh import licence for nine months from issue. en-us Tue, 03 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:38:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44340 Where the holder of a freely transferable import licence itself sought cancellation after the licence was lost, the cancellation could not be attacked as lacking a separate hearing, and the prohibition on issuing a duplicate licence did not assist the petitioner because a duplicate was no longer required. However, since the licence was lost without evidence of misuse and the validity period expired during the writ proceedings, equity justified grant of a fresh licence for the balance period on the same terms as the original. The petitioner was therefore entitled to a fresh import licence for nine months from issue. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 03 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44340