Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Kagaz Packaging (a partnership firm) and its partner Ms. Rajul Manoj Shah, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 19th July 1996 passed by the Director General of Foreign Trade. The order maintained earlier decisions of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Bombay and the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, which had rejected the first petitioner's application for premium under REP Circular No.11/1993 and the amended REP Circular No.14/1993. The first petitioner had been issued two Advance Intermediate Licences on 25th May 1992: Licence No.0304768/1/02/10/1/05 (Licence no.1) and Licence No.0304769/1/02/10/1/05 (Licence no.2). Licence no.1 was issued pursuant to a tie-up arrangement with M/s. Food and Inns Limited, which held an Advance Licence dated 24th June 1991 under the Duty Exemption Scheme. Licence no.2 was issued due to a tie-up with M/s. Coffee Board, Bangalore, which held an Advance Licence dated 31st August 1990. The first petitioner claimed that both M/s. Food and Inns Limited and M/s. Coffee Board fulfilled their export obligations, and the first petitioner received proceeds from them. The petitioners sought premium on the REP licenses, but the authorities rejected the application. The court considered the interpretation of the REP circulars and whether the petitioners had a vested right to premium. The court held that the policy change was prospective and the petitioners were not entitled to premium on licenses issued prior to the amendment. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Foreign Trade Policy - REP Licenses - Premium Entitlement - REP Circular No.11/1993 and REP Circular No.14/1993 - The petitioners sought premium on REP licenses issued prior to the amendment. The court held that the policy change was prospective and the petitioners had no vested right to premium under the earlier circular as the licenses were issued before the policy came into effect. (Paras 1-2) B) Administrative Law - Rejection of Application - Validity - The Director General of Foreign Trade maintained the orders of lower authorities rejecting the premium claim. The court upheld the rejection, finding no error in the interpretation of the circulars. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners were entitled to premium on REP licenses issued prior to the amendment of REP Circular No.11/1993 by REP Circular No.14/1993, and whether the rejection of their application by the Director General of Foreign Trade was valid.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The court upheld the order of the Director General of Foreign Trade rejecting the premium claim.
Law Points
- REP Circulars
- Premium Entitlement
- Policy Interpretation
- Prospective Application
- No Vested Right
