G.F. Kellner & Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India And Anr.
1994 Latest Caselaw 399 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

(1) Rule D.B.This is a writ petition which calls in question the letter dated 13/05/1993of Controller of Imports & Exports whereby the request of the petitioner for grant of Value Based license was rejected.

(2) The petitioner deals in exports of frozen marine products. The petitioner says that for export of the marine products it requires imported packing material as well as consumables. It also avers that by virtue of Public Notice No. 2/92-97dated 31/03/1992 (Annexure P-2 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent,value based advance import license could be claimed both on the basis of quantity and value of export. According to Annexure P-2, extract of the Public Notice, the advance license could be granted on the basis of Value Addition of 1000% against export of frozen marine products.

(3) The petitioner further says that on 8/08/1992 it applied for grant of value based license for Rs-42.84 lakhs against an export obligation of Rs.3 crores.Thus claiming advance license on the basis of Value Addition of 600%. According to the petitioner the Advance Licencing Committee at its meeting held on 11/06/1992 with respondent No. 2 fixed norms at 600% for both packing material and consumables for frozen marine products in the case of M/s.Adani Exports. On the analogy of this case, the petitioner avers it was fully entitled to similar benefit. The petitioner further says that it had exported marine products in the hope that the respondents would act upon their policy and grant duty free license on the value of the exports. The petitioner states that it had sent various reminders and representations to the respondents for the grant of the value based advance import license for Cif value of Rs.42,84,000.00.

(4) By a communication dated 13/05/1993 the petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent that his request for the grant of said advance import license has been rejected. The contents of the letter are as under:- "WITH reference to your letter No. REP/LNB:SD dated 8-8-92 on the subject mentioned above, I am to inform you that your case has been considered very carefully in this office but it is regretted that the same stands rejected as per the current policy grant of only qty. based advance license can be considered under production programme and value addition offered is on a lower side."

(5) It is this letter which has been impugned in the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's claims was in violation of the policy which came into force on 1/04/1992 for a period of 5years. He further submits that according to public notice dated 31/03/1992 the petitioner was entitled to import of packing material and consumables, and the respondents were bound to grant the advance import license for the same on the basis of the Value Addition on the principle of equitable estoppel as the petitioner acting on the policy of the Government had made exports. He further submitted that in the case of.M/s-Adani Exports the Advance Licencing Committee and respondent No. 2 had fixed the norms at 600% for import of both packing material& consumables. But the same treatment was not meted out to the petitioner. Learned Counsel also asserted that the policy to grant value based advance license was very much in vogue and the second respondent was not right in rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of the license on the ground that according to the current policy a request could be made only for quantity based advance license.Learned Counsel asserted that if that was so, there was no reason for the said respondent to state in the impugned letter that the value offered was on the lowerside. He also pointed out that besides M/s.Adani Exports, M/s.Cham Ice & Cold Storage was also granted advance license with Value Addition of 600%. This according to the learned Counsel was discriminatory.

(6) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the input-output and Value Addition norms published on 31/03/1992 were subject to revision and when the application of the petitioner dated 8/08/1992( filed on 14/08/1992) for grant of advance import license was moved, norms for all the items applied for had not been published. Learned Counsel pointed out that the norms were subsequently published on 25/09/1992. He has further contended that the Advance Licencing Committee and respondent No. 2 had fixed the norm at 600% for import of packing material and consumables in the individual case of M/s.Adani Exports. He asserted that the Advance Licensing Committee decides each and every case on its own merits. Learned Counsel drawing strength from the averments made in para 19 of the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the case of M/s.Adani Exports was reviewed and a show-cause notice has been given to it. Besides, since the petitioner did not offer the minimum Value Addition of 1000% in its application for grant of value based advance import license, the request was rejected. The learned Counsel lastly submitted that the principles of promissory estoppel are not attracted in the present case.

(7) We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. A perusal of the impugned letter shows that there has been no proper application of mind by the respondents to the request of the petitioner for grant of value basedadvance import license. On the one hand it is stated in the letter that as per the current policy grant of quantity based advance license can only be considered but on the other hand it is stated that "Value Addition offered is on a lower side". If the policy for grant of value based license had been scrapped, then there was no reason to state in the letter that Value Addition offered by the petitioner was on the lowerside. The letter is cryptic and contradictory. The reasons for rejecting the petitioner's request are not adequate and leave much to be desired. The matter requires fresh consideration by the respondents in the light of the points raised by the petitioner. It will be for the respondents to consider all aspects of the matter and render a fresh decision by means of a speaking order, giving proper reasons for thesame.

(8) Accordingly the letter dated 13/05/1993 is quashed and respondents are directed to consider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order setting out in detail the points raised by the petitioner and its decision thereon. It will be open to the petitioner to file a further representation taking such points as may be available to it under law within two weeks from today. On receipt of the representation anda copy of this order, the second respondent/Advance Licensing Committee(HQ) will render its decision expeditiously not later than two months.