TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (1) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....their export obligations under the Imprest-Licences. Petitioners seek issue of appropriate writs to the Authorities to re-validate the six Imprest Licences, with appropriate endorsement for the import of Open General items under the Import Export Policy of 1982-83 [AM 1983]. This writ petition came up for preliminary hearing along with Special Leave Petition [Civil] Nos. 2579 of 1987 and 2580 of 1987 preferred by the Union of India seeking leave to appeal from two Judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in two other cases. 2. Petitioners are a recognised Export-House for purposes of the Import-Export Policy, 1982-83. They applied for, and were granted, six imprest licences: [1] 2932347 dated 31.7.1982 for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to which the Export House would have been eligible to the REP licence, had he not obtained advance/imprest licence in question. This facility will be available to the Export House after he has discharged the export obligation imposed on the advance/imprest licence. Therefore, if by the time, the Export House becomes eligible to this facility, the advance/imprest licence has expired, or, if the original validity left unused by that time is less than six months, the licensing authority will revalidate the licence simultaneously so as to give to the licence-holder a time of six months for the purpose of importing OGL item under this facility. However, the petitioners did not bestir themselves to seek the revalidation and endorsement for OGL ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, obvious that you have not cared to apply immediately after discharge of export obligation and as such your request is grossly time-barred..." The second aspect is as to the merits and permissibility of the claim. The communication says: "...Moreover, in terms of para 185[7] to AM 83 Import Policy, import of OGL items by Export Houses under the provisions to sub-paras [4] and [5] of para 185 of the said policy is subject to the condition that the shipments of goods shall take place within the validity of the OGL i.e. 31.3.86 or within the validity period of the Import Licence itself [without grace period] whichever date is earlier. Since this date is over and the request has been made after 4 years and 7 months after the discharge of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of M/s. Ripal Kumar & Co. and M/s. H. Patel & Co., were exactly similar to those preferred in the case of petitioners also and that those grounds had been found by the courts to be insufficient in law to support the refusal. Petitioners say that they made the demand for revalidation immediately after the decision of the Bombay High Court in M/s. Ripal Kumar & Co.'s case and that the rejection of the petitioners' claim is wholly discriminatory, as there was no basis for any distinction to be made in petitioners' case. 5. Apart altogether from the merits of the grounds for rejection - on which it cannot be said that the mere rejection of the Special Leave Petitions in the cases of M/s. Ripal Kumar & Co. and M/s. H. Patel & Co. could no....