RAMESH OCCHAVLAL SHAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law for determination in this batch of writ petitions and the relevant facts being identical all these writ petitions were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions are transferees of Import Replenishment (REP) Licences issued to manufacturer exporters against the registered contracts under the Import Policies for 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Their contention is that they are entitled to import raw materials, components, consumables etc. , required by them in terms of para 131 (1) read with para 133 of the Import Policy 1980-81 and para 138 (1) read with para 140 of the Import Policies of 1981-82 and 1982-83, notwithstanding the fact that they themselves are not the manufacturer exporters in whose favour the REP Licences in question were issued. According to the petitioners, their cases are squarely governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in (M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and others) reported in A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 969 wherein on consideration of the provisions of para 138 (1) read with para 140 of the Import Policy 1981-82 it was held that the petitioners in that case, who were transferees of the REP Licences issued in the name of the actual manufacturer exporters were entitled to the facilities available under the said licences. It is stated that some of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are governed by the Import Policy, 1980-81, some others by the Import Policy, 1981-82, and rest by the Import Policy, 1982-83. According to the petitioners, the provisions in regard to transfer of the REP Licences in all these three Import Policies are identical except for change in numbers of the relevant paragraphs and as such the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills (supra) is fully applicable to the cases of all of them.

(3.) THE further case of the petitioners is that despite the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the respondents refused clearance of the goods imported by them on the strength of REP Licences obtained on transfer from the original licensees on the ground that the licences produced by them were not endorsed by Respondent No. 4, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports with the requisite paragraph as required under para 131 (1) of the Import Policy, 1980-81 or corresponding para 138 (1) of the other two Policies. So far as such endorsement is concerned, the petitioners contend that the respondent No. 4 had issued a circular as back as on 31-8-1981 with reference to Import Policy 1981-82 wherein it was stated that the facility under para 138 (1) was meant only for those manufacturers whose products were actually exported and not for other manufacturers of the said product. The aforesaid circular dated 31-8-1981 read as follows :