Messrs. Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises And ... vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 4 April, 2017
"However, what we find is that the impugned trade notice
refers to certain clarifications, which were sought by the
Regional Authorities. The Regional Authorities were of the view
that whether advance payment in the above paragraph will
include part advance or the full advance payment be clarified
and for that the DGFT had to step in. It stepped in not to amend
the notification, as is wrongly understood and argued before us.
It is only to remove the doubts expressed by the Regional
Authorities and issue the clarification that this trade notice was
issued. Its language and particularly that of para 3 is consistent
with the notification itself. The argument that the earlier trade
notice of 9th May, 2018 makes reference to payment in advance
(full or in part) does not cause any confusion and the expression
"advance payment" was always understood to be so is without
any merit. What has been provided by the Notification No. 4 is
that the expression "already imported" will include shipment
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
Writ Petition No.21438/2018
(Siddhi Vinayak & Another Vs. Union of India & Others)