Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Contemporaneously with the amendment of the Exports (Control) Order the Central Government issued a public notice dated 30th March, 1979, informing the public about the change in the policy. This public notice stated that the provisions of paragraph 316 of the Hand Book of Import-Export Procedures will not be applicable to any "pre-ban commitments" consequent to this public notice. It was said that all such cases will be decided "on merits" only.

5. On 12th September, 1979, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports issued another public notice setting out the new guidelines for deciding the "pre-ban" or "pre-control" cases affected by the public notice dated 30th March, 1979.

45. The question now is : What is the true character of paragraph 295 on which the petitioners base their claim ? Paragraph 295 is headed as "Pre-ban commitments" and opens with the words "Unless otherwise provided the following types of pre-ban (including pre-control) commitments may be ordinarily honoured for export control purposes". Then as many as six types of pre-ban commitments are detailed. The petitioners' case is that paragraph 295 is a representation on the faith of which they acted to their detriment and altered their position and it would be unfair to them to allow the State to replace this paragraph by a new set of guidelines.

47. I will assume, and that is the case of the petitioner, that paragraph 295 is executive in character and has a direct impact upon the right and the pre-ban commitments would "ordinarily" be honoured if certain conditions are satisfied. This was the policy announced for 1979-80. But in the middle of the year, i.e., on 13th August, 1979, the right available to the citizen under paragraph 295 was taken way and the new guidelines were framed placing severe restrictions on the export of products having 50 per cent or less silver contents. It appears to me, if there had been nothing else, the petitioners had a good case for the invocation of promissory estoppel against the maker of the representation, namely, the Central Government. There was a representation in paragraph 295. The petitioners had altered their position. They had acted on the faith of the representation. An equity had arisen in their favor. Only by enforcement of the promise could unjustice be avoided. But two important factors - public interest and the changing character or guidelines - militate against the view which the petitioners pressed upon us.

A sea of change

55. The export policy as declared in the statutory orders from time to time is indissolubly connected with the guidelines framed for "pre-ban commitments". Section 3 of the Act confers wide powers on the Government. The power is one and indivisible, although in the exercise of it, various Exports (Control) Orders are issued from, time to time. It is a fallacy to think that the Government enters into a contract when it announces its policy. There is no enforceable contract between the Government and the exporters. The Government can change the policy from time to time according to the needs of a developing economy. This is its "statutory birthright". If we apply estoppel it will prevent the public authority from performing its duty.