TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ligation. The petitioners were issued several advance licences. Against the advance licences granted to the petitioners exports were effected from time to time and export obligations were duly discharged by the petitioners. 3. The present petition relates to two advance licences bearing No.03020800 dated 12^th December, 1995 and 03201698 dated 28^th March, 1996 which hereinafter shall be referred to as the licences. According to the petitioners at the time of exports the petitioners correctly declared the goods in each shipping bill and wherever the said yarn was sub-standard, the same was so declared by the petitioners. The petitioners yarn was examined by the Customs Officer and after completion of the assessment under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rice. These different grades in turn are based on different specifications and each such specification has different end-uses. Nonetheless all the varieties of the said yarn are commercially known, sold and marketed as Rayon Viscose Filament Yarn. In order to distinguish one quality from the other, different nomenclatures are used. At times some of the qualities are referred to as sub-standard, which is only to distinguish the quality of one type of yarn from the other. The sub-standard yarn is also Rayon Viscose Filament Yarn and technically the parameters/cerficications thereof are the same as that of any other yarn except that end uses differ. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that between 9^th November, 2001 and 7^th August, 2002 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he relevant documents to the Licensing Authority for issuance of Redemption Certificate. Certain discrepancies were pointed out and the same documents were returned to the petitioners. On 30^th June, 2005 after receiving the documents duly completed by the Customs Authorities and after complying with the other deficiencies pointed out by the Licensing Authority the Petitioners once again submitted the relevant export documents to the Licensing Authority. When the matter was pending with the Licensing Authority on 20^th June, 2005, the 5^th Respondent sought to invoke the bank guarantee notwithstanding the order dated 4^th June, 2002 of this Court. The petitioners, therefore, took out Notice of Motion No.316 of 2005 in Writ Petition No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioners requested for considering the representation made by letter of 2^nd December, 2005. Inspite of that on 10^th April, 2006 by two identical letters the petitioners were called upon to pay duty as earlier demanded. Inspite of further correspondence and as no relief was granted the present petition. 7. A reply has been filed by Vijay N. Shewale, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. It is their contention that the petitioners had exported sub-standard goods and as such they were liable to pay customs duty on proportionate import of raw materials. It is pointed out that the petitioners claim for grant of DEPB norms are understood to be applicable only for prime/fresh/superior quality goods. The petitioner submitted their e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that even assuming without admitting that it was open to PRC to take a decision that decision could not be retrospective and at the highest it could be prospective considering that the petitioners have already completed their export obligation under the policy then in force. 9. Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 reads as under :- "5. Export and import policy.—The Central Government may, from time to time formulate and announce, by notification in the Official Gazette, the export and import policy and may also, in the like manner, amend that policy." It is, therefore, clear that the power to formulate and announce export import policy is conferred on the Central Government and that pow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch of this Court in the case of Narendra Udeshi vs. Union of India in Writ Petition No.808 of 2002 decided on 1^st October, 2002 wherein in respect of a similar issue the learned Bench held that the power to amend the policy being within the exclusive domain of the Central Government the said powers in that case could not have been usurped by D.G.F.T. in the guise of laying down regulatory measures. The judgment of this Court was taken in applied to the Supreme Court which dismissed the Special Leave Petition by its order dated 7^th May, 203. The Petition, therefore, is liable to be allowed on this point alone. 10. Even otherwise the decision of PRC is not an exercise in subordinate legislation or for that matter a decision o....