2019 (11) TMI 1496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....msp;In short, the petitioner had applied for The Duty Free Import Authorisation (in short "DFIA") Licence on 2-6-2015 which was issued by respondent No. 3 bearing DFIA Licence No. 3010103853 on 3-10-2016 and on the basis of said licence, the petitioner was entitled to import various items including Natural Rubber. The case of petitioner is that during the period from June, 2015 to October, 2015, the petitioner had exported Automobile Tyre reinforced with Nylon Tyre Cord Warp Sheet etc., by way of 31 shipping bills. The petitioner was thus entitled to import Natural Rubber in view of Standard Input and Output Norms (SION) in which it is so provided and is reproduced as under :- Sl. No. Export Item Import Item Name Quantity ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms allowed for dipping i.e. Resorcinol and V.P. Latex shall not be allowed but a weight of 0.61 kg may be added. 3. It is further submitted that as per Clause 4.29(VIII) of DFIA, "No Duty Free Import Authorisation shall be issued for an input where SION prescribes 'Actual User' condition." However, prayer made by the petitioner for importing the items including the Natural Rubber has been declined on the ground that there is an amendment in Clause 4.29(VIII) with effect from 21-3-2017 which provides as under :- "No Duty Free Import Authorisation shall be issued for an input where SION prescribes 'Actual User' condition and/or Appendix-4J prescribes pre import condition for such an input." 4. It is submitted that on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een amended would not apply retrospectively in respect of the case of the petitioner. 8. We have heard both the Counsels for the parties, perused the record with their able assistance and are of the considered opinion that case set up by the petitioner has a merit because the petitioner is claiming right of redemption on the basis of export which took place between the months of June, 2015 to October, 2015, on the basis of the provisions of Clause 4.29 of DFIA in which there was no such condition that Appendix-4J prescribes three import condition for such an import. It is found that amendment has been brought on 21-3-2017 much after the export and therefore, petitioner cannot be denied the benefit which is available to him in view o....