TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (1) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entitled to the Export House Certificate. Special leave petition filed by the Union of India against the said order was heard along with a bunch of similar petitions under the title Union of India v. Rajnikant Brothers. The petitions were dismissed on April 18, 1985 by an order in the following terms : "We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the High Courts of Bombay and Delhi. We are unable to find, in the facts and circumstances of the case any requirement of diversification of exports as a condition for the grant of Export House Certificates in the Import Policy for the year 1978-79. While confirming the High Court's Judgment quashing the order impugned in the Writ Petitions in the High Court we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal directed the refund of the redemption fee to the respondent. 5. The Tribunal decided in favour of the respondent broadly on three grounds. It came to the conclusion that till September 12, 1986, when this Court delivered judgment in Union of India v. M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. (1986) 3 S.C.R 771 = 1986 (26) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.), the custom authorities were interpreting the order of this Court dated April 18, 1985 (Rajnikant case) to mean that the additional licence holders were permitted to import even the canalised items. Secondly the import by the respondent was bona fide because of the following factors : (a) On April 3, 1986 in a meeting attended by Mr. Swaminathan, Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Mr. R.M. Singh, Prin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ems which are specifically banned under the prevalent import policy at the time of import, the respondents shall be entitled to import all other items whether canalised or otherwise in accordance with the relevant rules." There is no ambiguity in the order which makes it clear that the additional licence holders would not be entitled to import the items which are specifically banned under the import policy 1985-88. No other interpretation is possible. Some of the Departmental officers were not justified in taking the view that the order permitted the import of canalised items. In any case this Court in Raj Prakash Chemicals v. Union of India (1986) 1 S.C.R 448 decided on March 5, 1986 authoritatively interpretated the order dated April 18, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Additional Licences under the Import Policy 1978-79 and had opened and established irrevocable Letters of Credit before October 18, 1985 should be permitted, notwithstanding the construction we have placed on the order dated April 18, 1985 of this Court, to clear the goods imported, or to be imported, by them pursuant to such irrevocable Letters of Credit. In other words, all imports effected pursuant to such Letters of Credit should be deemed to have been legally and properly made, and should entail no adverse consequences whatsoever..........At the same time we make it clear that diamond exporters who pursuant to the issue of Additional Licences under the Import Policy 1978-79 have opened and established irrevocable Letters of Credit on o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... possessed by them. They are also not entitled to the benefit extended by the judgment of this Court dated March 5, 1986 to those diamond exporters who had imported items under irrevocable Letters of Credit opened and established before October 18, 1985. It appears from the record before us that the respondents diamond exporters opened and established the irrevocable Letters of Credit after that date." 12. In Union of India v. M/s. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 3 S.C.R 771 = 1986 (26) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) decided on September 12, 1986 this Court finally considered the judgments in Raj Prakash and Afghan Chambers cases and approved the ratio therein in the following words : "In respect of Palm Kernel Fatty Acid which is a canalised item liste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orrect that the facts in B. Vijay Kumar's case relied upon by the Tribunal are somewhat similar to the facts in this case. This Court decided Vijay Kumar's case on the special facts and circumstances of the said case. This Court while deciding Vijay Kumar's case observed as under : "We do not consider it necessary to deal with these submissions in detail as we are of the opinion that in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case specially having regard to the findings of the Tribunal that the appellants imported the canalised items of goods bona fide under the additional import licence granted to them in pursuance of the express conditions contained in the orders of this Court, which finding has not been challenged....