TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (9) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of Palm Karnel Fatty Acid on high sea basis imported under an additional licence. They challenged the action of the Customs authorities refusing to permit the clearance of the said Palm Karnel Fatty Acid in view of the decision of this Court in Raj Prakash Chemical's case - (1986) 2 SCC 297 and Indo Afghan Chamber of Commerce's case - AIR 1986 SC 1567. 3.  It may be mentioned that one Messrs. Dimexon a firm carrying on business of importing rough diamonds and exporting cut and polished diamonds were issued Export House Certificate under the import policy for the period 1978-79 and certain additional licences in or about the month of July, 1986 covered by the licensing period AM-79. The said licence was claimed to have been issued in compliance with the order of this Court dated 18th April, 1985. As the purport of that order was the subject matter of two subsequent decisions of this Court and the genesis of the right of the present respondents was claimed from the said decision, it may not be inappropriate to refer to the said decision. The said decision was given in Civil Appeal No. 1423 of 1984. This Court held that there was no requirement of diversification of exports....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rakash Chemicals Ltd. & Another v. Union of India & Others (supra). This Court clarified the decision in that case which was rendered by a bench of three learned judges consisting of V.D. Tulzapurkar, J. and both of us (R.S. Pathak and Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ). 6. As this Court has observed in M/s Indo Afghan Chambers of Commerce and another v. Union of India and others (supra) the order dated 18th April, 1985 has been considered by this Court in Raj Prakash Chemicals Ltd. and another v. Union of India & Others (supra) to mean that : "only such items could be Imported by diamond exporters under the Additional Licences granted to them as could have been imported under the Import Policy 1978-79, the period during which the diamond exporters had applied for Export House Certificates and had been wrongfully refused, and were also importable under the Import Policy prevailing at the time of import, which in the present case is the Import Policy 1985-88. These were the items which had not been 'specifically banned' under the- prevalent Import Policy. The items had to pass through two tests. They should have been importable under the Import Policy 1978-79. They should also have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cence. The possibility of a policy being framed in the future enabling an Export House holding an Additional Licence to directly import items which are 'non-canalised and also items which are 'canalised' cannot be ruled out. It is in this light that the Court can be said to have used the words "whether canalised or otherwise" in its order dated 18th April, 1985. 8.  The point from a slightly different angle was considered in writ petition No. 199 of 1986 in Indo Afghan Chambers of Commerce with Civil Appeal No. 664 of 1986 (supra) dated 15th May, 1986 by a bench consisting of both of us (R.S. Pathak & Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ). There Indo Afghan Chambers of Commerce and its President aggrieved by the grant of additional licences to the respondents, M/s Rajnikant Brothers and M/s Everest Gems for the import of dry fruits came to this Court. This Court examined some of the contentions. This Court reiterated that by the order dated 5th March, 1986, this Court has construed its order dated 18th April, 1985 referred to hereinbefore to mean that only such items could be imported by diamond exporters under the Additional Licences granted to them as could have been imported under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the Import Policy 1978-79. It is a canalised item under the current Import Policy 1985-88. 10. As the Government refused to permit clearance of the said goods because the said goods were canalised, the learned single judge of the Bombay High Court by its order dated 10th July, 1986 permitted the clearance of the goods in question. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, Union of India preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Division Bench was pleased to, by its order dated 23rd July, 1986, allow clearance of the goods. It is the submission of the Union of India that this direction was contrary to the directions given in Raj Prakash's case (supra) and Indo Afghan Chamber's case (supra). 12.  In respect of Palm Karnel Fatty Acid which is a canalised item listed as item 9(v) in Appendix V Part B of the Import Policy 1985-88, there is no provision in that Policy which permits the import of such item by an Export House holding an Additional Licence. Therefore, the claim of the diamond exporters, or, as in this case a purchaser from the diamond exporter, must fail because it is not open to import by the diamond exporter under any pr....