HARI EXPORTS Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the validity of the two notifications dated 25- 1-1994 and 29-1-1994, effect of which is to transform Polypropylene Moulding powder/granules (referred as goods in question) as goods in the sensitive test for the purpose of its importation, though, when the value based licence issued to the petitioner, no such restriction was imposed.

(2.) Petitioner was issued with the Value Based Licence on 6-7-1993. As per this licence, if the petitioner exports the particular goods (Cassettes) he was entitled to import the goods described in the licence without any restriction as to their quantity. It is not necessary to refer to other benefits available to this licence holder. After the issuance of this licence dated 6-7-1993, "goods in question" was added to the 'sensitive list', on 14-9-1993. According to the petitioner, this addition did not affect the pre-existing licencees. However, this was altered by the two impugned Notifications dated 25-1-1994 and 29-1-1994. The petitioner relies on the doctrine of promissory estoppel to contend that the licence issued to the petitioner was a promise held out to him, permitting the import of goods in question without restriction as to its quantity and that the impugned Notifications are unreasonable restrictions on his fundamental right to carry on with his trade, granted under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India, further, the petitioner contended that the impugned Notifications were not in the public interest; instead, they were issued to protect certain "local manufacturers".

(3.) On 21-2-1994, the Bench issued notice to the respondents for 9-3-1994 to show cause as to why Rule Nisi be not issued. Court directed the respondents to file reply by that date. On 9-3-1994, the Court granted further four weeks 'to file counter and directed listing of the case on 2-5-1994 and issued Rule. On 2nd May, 1994 the matter was adjourned; on 16-5-1994, again the case was adjourned to 19-5-1994, on which date Court heard the matter. It is obvious that, since the period of licence is about to expire, the Bench directed the listing of the case early.