Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts which are common to all the appeals being similar are taken from the appeal: Union of India Vs. Chowgule & Co. Ltd. & Others.

3. Respondent is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged, inter alia, in the export of processed iron ore of Goan origin. It is also recognised as a trading house. Under the Import Export Policy for April 1988-March 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old policy') trading houses were eligible for the benefit inter alia of additional licences of defined value against the export of processed iron ore under the policy. Old policy was terminated and instead a new policy starting w.e.f. April 1990- March 1993 (for short 'the New Policy') was introduced. During the period 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1990 the respondents had exported processed iron ore of the value of Rupees 21,92,15,711.69. On 4.6.1990 the company applied to the Assistant Chief Controller of Imports & Exports for additional licence of a value of Rs.2,12,63,924/- against the said exports. The application was rejected by the Assistant Chief Controller of Imports & Exports on 24th September, 1990 on the ground that application for additional licence for the licensing year 1990-1991 could not be considered on the basis of the items appearing in Appendix 12 of the New Policy because there was no provision for grant of licence under the heading transitional arrangements in terms of the paragraph 222 of the New Policy. Respondents preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 21st January, 1991. Likewise second appeal was dismissed on 12th March, 1992. Review Petition filed by the respondents was also rejected on 9th June, 1993.

5. On 14th July, 1993 respondents lodged its claim for 20% premium instead of additional licence for the licensing year April-March 1991 against exports of processed iron ore in the preceding licensing year April-March 1990. The claim of the company was rejected by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Panaji vide letter dated 1st September, 1993 on the ground that minerals and ores appearing in Appendix 12 of the policy book 1990-1993 were ineligible for additional licence.

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid sets of orders the respondents filed the writ petitions in the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench, Goa seeking two-fold relief. Firstly, for quashing of the orders passed by the various authorities as mentioned above refusing their prayer for additional licence and secondly a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Union of India to forthwith pay to them premium of 20% of Rs.2,12,63,924/- being the face value of the additional licence for April-March 1991 to which the respondents were entitled to under the Circular 11 of 1993.

7. The respondents in their writ petitions raised three-fold contentions, firstly, it was urged on their behalf that by exporting processed iron ore during the period 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1990 under the import export policy for the years 1988-1991 (old Policy), they had acquired a vested right to get additional licence in the licensing year April-March 1990-1991 of the value prescribed in the import export policy relevant for April 1988- March 1991 and the said right could not be defeated by the provisions of the new policy. Secondly, it was contended that on a true construction of the relevant provisions of the import export policy for April 1990 March 1993, in particular, paragraph 220 thereof, the respondents were entitled to additional licence for the licensing year April 1990 March 1991 against exports of processed iron ore made in the preceding licensing year, i.e., April 1989-March 1990 and that the authorities have misconstrued the relevant provisions. Thirdly, it was contended that the Union of India was precluded by the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel for denying the additional licence to the company during the licensing year April-March 1991 of the value defined having represented to the Trading Houses/Exporters that they would be entitled to the additional licence, the parties having acted upon that representation and having exported processed iron ore during the period 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1990.

9. It may be highlighted that appellants did not dispute that the respondent's company was a recognised Trading House. The extent of export of processed iron ore made by the respondents between 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1990 and the value thereof stated in the writ petition were not controverted. The value shown by the respondents for the purpose of additional licence was also not disputed. No issue as regards the net foreign exchange earnings as may have been earned against the export of iron ore was raised. Except from contending that the respondents were ineligible for grant of additional licence as per the new policy it was not stated that the application for licence was liable to be rejected on any other ground. Issuance of the Circular 11 of 93 for payment of premium in the manner provided instead of additional licence to which the applicant may have been entitled to was also not disputed.