NATH BROS EXIM INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to Export House Certificate in the capacity of "Manufacturer-Exporter-SSI" for the year 1984- 85.

(2.) The petitioner company was initially only an exporter of the readymade garments and had a certificate as an Export House. They started manufacturing the readymade garments (and exporting them) from the year 1981. Initially, they had a provisional certificate for registration as a small scale industrial unit from the Director of Industries, U.P., up to November 1982. The said certificate was renewed from time to time. A permanent certificate was issued in favour of the petitioners as an S.S.I. Unit by the Director of Industries, U.P. on 20th June, 1984.

(3.) The petitioners applied for an Export House Licence as Manufacturers for the year 1984-85. On 21st June, 1984, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports rejected the petitioners application on the ground that the certificate from the Director of Industries was a provisional certificate and its validity was only up to 13th November, 1982. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports held that the application of the petitioners could be considered only as an application for the renewal of the Certificate under Para 180 and not as an application for a fresh certificate under Para 176 of the Export Policy. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports further informed that as the growth rate of 20% as required by Para 180(2) of the Import Policy was not achieved by the petitioner, the Export House Certificate could not be renewed in their favour. In reply to the said letter, the petitioner informed the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports on June, 25 1984, that the permanent registration certificate bearing No. 20/56/01035/PNT/855/12 dated 20-6-1984 was issued by the Director of Industries, U.P. Photo copies of the said permanent registration certificate were also annexed with the letter. This letter was not replied by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The petitioner made a number of representations including the one to the Minister of Commerce. Thereafter, on 28th February, 1985 the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, acting for the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, informed the petitioner that his representation to the Minister of Commerce was considered and rejected because he had failed to achieve the growth rate of 20 per cent as required under Para 180(2) of the Import Policy. He was also informed that his application could be considered only as an application for renewal of the Export House Certificate. It may be noted that even in this letter the fact that the petitioner had already obtained the permanent certificate as a small scale industrial unit from the Director of Industries, U.P. was neither considered nor even adverted to. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present petition.