2023 (2) TMI 902
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the licence. However, as per the DFIA licence issued on 15.04.2010, the said licence is transferable and the petitioner, who is the purchaser of the licences, claims that they are entitled to the usage and benefit of those licences. The petitioner has also been allowed to import based on the DFIA licences dated 15.04.2010 as seen from the communication sent by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade to the Commissioner of Customs (Exports) on 31.07.2008. The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade has also issued Policy Circular No.72 (RE-08)/2004-2009 dated 24.03.2009 to all the Regional Authorities and All Commissioners of Customs, Trade and Industry clarifying that alternative inputs are allowed for import as per SION (Standard Input Output Norms) under the DFIA Scheme. The petitioner has relied upon the following authorities in support of his contention that the import policy prevalent at the time of issuance of the licence would apply to goods covered by imports made under that licence and the subsequent change in policy will be of no consequence: a)An order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hoewitzer Organic Chemical Co. vs. D.G.F.T., New Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Pushpanjali Floriculture Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, which is relied upon by the petitioner, is the subject matter of challenge by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.960 of 2017. They have stated that since the matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner does not have any legal right to revalidate the DFIA licences and therefore, the request of the petitioner has been rightly rejected under the impugned order in accordance with the provisions of FTDR Act, 1992 and FTP (Foreign Trade Policy). 5.With regard to the contention raised by the petitioner that the Public Notice dated 23.07.2010 and the Policy Circular dated 31.01.2011 are only prospective in nature is concerned, the respondents have not rebutted the same in the counter affidavit. 6.Admittedly, no stay of the judgment, passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Pushpanjali Floriculture Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, referred to supra, has been granted by the Hon'ble Supre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Jain Exports (P) Ltd. v. Union of India - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 173 (S.C.) to canvas the plea that the import policy prevalent at the time of issuance of the license would apply to goods covered by imports made under that license and the subsequent change in policy will be of no consequence. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ashok Kumar Jain v. Union of India - 2010 (253) E.L.T. 767 (Bom.). In paragraph (4) of the said decision, the Division Bench, after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jain Exports (P) Ltd. case, supra, observed as follows: "4.Mr.Jetly learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the importing question would be governed by the import and export policy applicable for the year AM 91-94 as the import had taken place in June, 1992 i.e. after expiry of AM 1988-91. He submitted that though REP licence was issued when AM 1988-91 was in force, since the import had taken place in June, 1992 the REP licence as well as import made under the REP licence would be governed by the import and export policy in force on the actual date of import and not on the date when ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on and the DGFT Policy Circular. Subsequent change in policy by way of Public Notice No.84/2009-14, dated 23.7.2010, clarification dated 23.9.2010 and the Policy Circular No.13, dated 31.1.2011 will have no consequence in respect of the license that has already been issued. Accordingly, the said issue is decided in favour of the petitioner." 8.In the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pushpanjali Floriculture Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2016 (340) E.L.T. 32 (P&H), which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the following observations have been made: '44.It is seen that the DFIA is issued with a limited validity of 24 months. Due to the actions of the respondents the DFIAs could not be utilised by the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep Exports Ltd., 2004 (9) SCC 128 = 2004 (164) E.L.T. 133 (S.C.), had directed the respondents to issue certificate for the purpose of revalidation of expired licenses due to disputes raised by the department. We are satisfied that due to the impugned invalid notifications, Public Notice/Circulal, licenses could not be utilised by the petitioner. The petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered view of this Court is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, this Court is in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the above referred decision. 11.Admittedly, no stay has been obtained from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and only a S.L.P. is pending as against the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Pushpanjali Floriculture Pvt. Ltd. case. Further the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Hoewitzer case, referred to supra, has also attained finality and therefore, the petitioner must be given the benefit in accordance with the said decision. 12.This Court has perused and examined the impugned order dated 08.11.2019. As seen from the impugned order, it has been erroneously held that the petitioner has failed to establish the claim for revalidation of the DFIA licences as the petitioner is the holder of freely transferable DFIA licences and the transfer was permissible when the licence was originally issued in the year 2010, which came into effect on 15.04.2010. The reasons given by the respondents for rejecting the petitioner's applications seeking for revalidation are that the ....