16.Accordingly, the order of the learned Judge dated 29.04.2011 passed in the writ petitions is set aside and these appeals are allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (R.M.D., J.) (J.S.N.P., J.) 30.06.2022. HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD Writ Appeal Nos. 823 to 830 of 2016 and CMP.Nos.10731 to 10738 of 2016 WA No. 823 of 2016 1. Director General of Foreign Trade Government of India f 2001. For Appellants : Mr. Sankara Narayanan, ASGI assisted by Mr.Venkatasamy Babu in all the writ appeals For R1 : Mr.A.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan in all the writ appeals COMMON JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Writ Appeal Nos. 823 to 830 of 2016 and CMP.Nos.10731 to 10738 of 2016
WA No. 823 of 2016
1. Director General of Foreign Trade
Government of India
Udyog Bhavan
New Delhi 110 001
2. The Zonal Joint Director of Foreign Trade
Government of India
Ministry of Commerce
Shastri Bhavan Annexe
26, Haddows Road Chennai – 600 006
formerly No.38 & 39, Whites Road Chennai 600 014
3. The Union of India represented by its Secretary
Ministry of Finance
North Block, Central Secretariat
New Delhi 110 001
4. The Union of India represented by its Secretary
Ministry of Commerce
Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001 .. Appellants Versus
1. M/s.Vishal Exports Overseas Limited represented by its Managing Director Vishal House, Opp: Sales India
Behind Oriental Bank of Commerce
Ashram Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 having its branch office at Chennai
2. The Commissioner of Customs
Customs House
Rajaji Salai
Chennai – 600 001 .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of The Letters Patent against the order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the learned Judge in W.P. No. 5842 of 2001.
For Appellants : Mr. Sankara Narayanan, ASGI
assisted by Mr.Venkatasamy Babu in all the writ appeals
For R1 : Mr.A.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan in all the writ appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
These intra-court appeals arise from a common order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the learned Judge in WP Nos. 5842, 6481, 6488, 6489 of 2001 and
7814 to 7817 of 2002.
2.The first respondent herein viz., M/s.Vishal Exports Overseas
Limited, preferred the aforesaid writ petitions for the following reliefs:
WP.Nos.5842, 6481, 6488 and 6489 of 2001
To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the issuance of the impugned orders passed by the Zonal Joint
Director of Foreign Trade, Chennai, under F.No.04/88/40/80/AM.97,
F.No.04/88/40/99/AM.97, F.No.04/88/40/68/AM.97,
F.No.04/88/40/95/AM.97, respectively, dated 04.09.1998 and further orders dated 22.11.2000, passed by the Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, under Ref.No.F.No.01/85/162/57/AM.01/DES-VI-922,
Ref.No.F.No.01/85/162/54/AM.01/DES-VI,
Ref.No.F.No.01/85/162/56/AM.01/DES-VI-928, Ref
No.F.No.01/85/162/55/AM.01/DES-VI-934 respectively and quash the same and for a direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the appellants to make the necessary endorsement to revalidate the licence as well as bond waiver and allow the first respondent to import duty free the goods as per the given norms applicable on the date of issue of licence.
WP Nos.7814 to 7817 of 2002
To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned orders passed by the Zonal Joint Director of Foreign Trade, Chennai, under F.No.04/88/40/00068/AM.97, F.No.04/88/40/80/AM.97, F.No.04/88/40/00095/AM.97,
F.No.04/88/40/00099/AM.97 respectively dated 5.9.2001 and quash the same and for a direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the appellants to revalidate the licence and made endorsements of transferability to allow the first respondent or their agents to import duty free imports as per the given norms applicable on the date of issue of licence.
3.By the impugned order dated 29.04.2011, the learned Judge allowed the aforesaid writ petitions and directed the appellants to revalidate the licences of the first respondent in accordance with law, within a period of two months. For better appreciation, the findings of the learned Judge are quoted below:
“15.Thus, on a cumulative consideration of all the above materials and the reasons assigned in the preceding paragraphs, the following emerges; that the respondents have not disputed that the petitioner has fulfilled their export obligations, consequent to which they are entitled to import the materials as would be authorised under the advance licences. Though the petitioner could not effect the import within the permissible time, but applied for revalidation of the licence well before the expiry of the original period of licence. Such application for revalidation was not considered by the respondents and no endorsement of revalidation or rejection of request was either made and communicated to the petitioner, after the period of 30 months from the original date of issue of licences, the respondents have stated that the revalidation cannot be made after a period of 30 months. The fact remains that the petitioner was not communicated about the alleged revalidation. Even thereafter, when the embargo of 30 months was lifted pursuant to the public notice dated 31.03.2001, the respondents failed to accord the benefit of such public notice, though it appears that the petitioner was fully entitled to benefit under the said notice. As the petitioner was persistence in their request for revalidation, as an after thought, the respondents called for details of consumption particulars of vitamin mixes used in the export product, though, such individual percentage of mixes were not required to be furnished under the 1992-1997 policy guidelines, therefore, the demand for furnishing such particulars is wholly without jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondents is wholly untenable, without jurisdiction and arbitrary. As noticed above, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Prince Rubber Industries (Supra) held that licensee like the petitioner cannot be penalised for inaction on the part of the authorities. Therefore, this Court would be fully justified in allowing the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to revalidate the licences in accordance with law.”
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants, who were the respondents 2 to 5 in the writ petitions, are before this court with these intra-court appeals.
4.1. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the appellants submitted that in pursuance of a scheme called “Duty Free Entitlement Scheme”, the first respondent submitted applications for Quantity
Based Advance Licence, which were processed as per Standard IO Norms vide Serial No.7 of Fish Products; and four advance licences viz., No.04009844 dated 20.08.1996, No.04009721 dated 24.07.1996, No.04009928 dated 28.08.1996 and No.04010868 dated 16.01.1997 were granted initially for a period of 12 months. Subsequently, the licences were automatically validated for further period of six months. While so, the first respondent made applications for revalidation of the licences and also waiver, which were originally rejected by the Zonal Joint Director of Foreign Trade, Chennai, by separate orders dated 04.09.1998. But the said request was subsequently, considered and waiver was granted on 15.06.1999 by revalidating their licences for a further period of twelve months from the date of expiry of the licences. Thereafter, the first respondent made similar applications for revalidation of the licences, which were, based on the decision of the Advance Licensing Committee No.24/01 dated 19.10.2000, rejected by the Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, by separate orders dated 22.11.2000, on the ground that the validity of the licences has already been extended upto 30 months and there is no provision for revalidation beyond 30 months from the date of issue of licences and that, a query was raised as to whether while allowing revalidation, the instructions contained in the HQRS SALC Circular No.5/98-99 dated 21.01.1999 i.e., reduction of quantity of vitamin mixes from
0.227 MT/MT to 0.027 MT/MT, were complied with. Notwithstanding the same, the first respondent again submitted representations seeking revalidation based on the Public Notice dated 31.03.2001 and the same were rejected by separate orders dated 05.09.2001 of the Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai, for want of consumption details of vitamin mixes as called for. All the orders passed by the respondent authorities were challenged by the first respondent by filing writ petitions invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Without considering the reason by which the request of the first respondent was rejected, the learned Judge erred in allowing the writ petitions, by the order impugned in these appeals. When the appellants sought to review the said order, the learned Judge again dismissed the review applications, by affirming the order passed in the writ petitions. Therefore, the appellants are before this court with these appeals.
4.2. Adding further, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellants contended that originally, the first respondent was granted licences for a period of 12 months; the validity of the same was suo motu extended by further period of six months and was subsequently, extended by further period of 12 months, at the request of the first respondent; and hence, there is no provision for revalidation beyond the period of 30 months. That apart, the first respondent did not furnish the consumption details of vitamin mixes as called for by the authority concerned. In the absence of such details, the request of the first respondent seeking revalidation in terms of the provisions contained in Public Notice No.2(RE-01)(PN)1997-2002 dated
31.03.2001, cannot be considered and hence, the same was rejected on 05.09.2001. Thus, according to the learned counsel, without complying with the mandatory requirement, the first respondent cannot seek revalidation as a matter of right.
4.3. It is also submitted on the side of the appellants that upon receipt of the representation from the first respondent seeking revalidation of the licences, a report was called for from the Regional Licensing Authority, who inturn submitted the same to the effect that they have power to allow revalidation of the licence for a period of twelve months; but, in the instant case, the first respondent not only requested for revalidation, but also waiver; and they did not comply with the condition viz., reduction of quantity of vitamin mixes from 227 kg to 27 kg. The said report was placed before the Advance Licensing Committee, which vide minutes dated 19.10.2000, observed that revalidation has already been granted upto 30 months and there is no provision after 30 months from the date of issue of licence; and accordingly, decided not to accede to the request of the first respondent. Based on the said resolution of the Advance Licensing Committee, the claim of the first respondent seeking revalidation, was rejected. Without considering the same, the learned Judge allowed the writ petitions by directing the authority concerned to revalidate the licences by the order dated 29.04.2011. When the said order of the learned Judge was placed before the Policy Relaxation Committee for action, by meeting no.41/AM12 dated 21.02.2012, the same was also rejected, after having noted that the first respondent earlier did not accept the reduced quantity of inputs and despite having provided a validity of 30 months, they did not undertake imports; and the authorizations pertain to the period of 1996 and 1997 and that, at this distance of time, there was no merit to revalidate these 4 authorizations. Such a decision taken by the committees, which are specially constituted bodies, cannot be interfered with by this court under writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to allow these appeals by quashing the order of the learned Judge.
5.1. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that after satisfying the eligibility of the first respondent, they were issued with four advance licences and they duly complied with the export obligations. Adding further, it is submitted that there is no need for the first respondent to furnish the consumption details of vitamin mixtures, especially when they have fulfilled all the export obligations prior to making any imports and the authorities themselves have standarised the input/output norms for the product exported. Further, the policy/Hand book also provides that the given material can be imported duty free even before the discharge of export obligation and such goods need not necessarily be used in the manufacture of export project. In such circumstances, the request made by the first respondent seeking revalidation, ought to have been considered by the appellants, but they did not do so. On the other hand, the learned Judge has pointed out the same and decided the writ petitions in favour of the first respondent.
5.2. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the first respondent that it was admitted by the appellants that the applications were submitted in time, however, for no fault of the first respondent, they were rejected on untenable grounds. The learned Judge, on appreciation of the factual matrix of the case, has rightly allowed the writ petitions and directed the authority concerned to revalidate the licences issued to the first respondent, by the order impugned herein, which does not call for any interference by this Court.
6.We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record, including the original files circulated by the appellants.
7.Admittedly, the first respondent was granted Advance Licences bearing Nos.04009844 dated 20.08.1996, 04009721 dated 24.07.1996, 04009928 dated 28.08.1996 and 04010868 dated 16.01.1997 for export of fish and fish products by JDGFT, Chennai, for a period of 12 months and the validity of the same was extended by further period of six months. It is borne out from the records that after the expiry of period of licences, the first respondent sought revalidation of the same by making applications, which were originally rejected by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai, by orders dated 04.09.1998. However, the said request was subsequently, considered and the period of licences was extended by another 12 months from the date of expiry of extended period, which fact was disputed by the first respondent stating that no communication was received by them to that effect. While so, the request made by the first respondent seeking revalidation, was rejected by the Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, by orders dated 22.11.2000. Challenging those two orders, the first respondent preferred the first batch of writ petitions. Thereafter, by placing reliance on the public notice no.2(RE-01)(PN)1997-2002 dated 30.03.2001, the first respondent again made applications seeking revalidation of the licences, which were rejected on 05.09.2001 for want of consumption details relating to Vitamin Mixes in their resultant product. Aggrieved over the same, the second batch of writ petitions were filed by the first respondent. The learned Judge allowed both the batches of writ petitions by setting aside all the orders passed by the authorities concerned. Therefore, the present appeals by the appellants.
8.According to the appellants, the request of the first respondent seeking revalidation of the licences, was rejected by the appellant authorities, based on the decision of the Advance Licensing Committee, after calling for report from the Regional Licensing Authority, on the ground that the first respondent was already granted validation for 30 months and there is no provision for further revalidation beyond the period of 30 months; and that, they did not comply with the reduction of quantity of vitamin mixes from 227kg to 27kg of their resultant product. On the other hand, the first respondent contended that there is no need for them to furnish the consumption details of vitamin mixtures, when they have fulfilled all the export obligations prior to making any import and therefore, the appellant authorities are bound to necessarily revalidate the licences.
9.To appreciate the rival contentions, it is but necessary to refer to the contents of the circular no.5/98-99 dated 21.01.1999, which stipulates the condition of reduction of vitamix mixes, for want of compliance of which, the request of the first respondent seeking revalidation of the licences was rejected by the appellant authorities. The said circular was issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, which is an executive order, and the same reads as follows:
F.No.01/80/40/………/DES-IV/
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE
UDYOG BHAVAN; NEW DELHI
SALC CIRCULAR NO.5/98-99 Date: 21.01.1999
(i) All Customs Authorities
(ii) All Licensing Authorities
Subject: Advance licence issued for Import of Vitamin Mixes on Export of Frozen Headon/Headless Shrimps
—————————————————————————————–Sir,
All the licensing authorities are aware that prior to 01.04.97 under standard norms against the export of 1 MT of Frozen Headon / Headless shrimps, one of the inputs permitted for import as “Vitamin Mixes/ Mineral Mixes” to the extent of 0.227 MT/MT consolidatedly. Reports were received that some exporters were claiming / importing only “Vitamin Mixes” for the entire permissible quantity of 0.227 MT/MT without claiming / importing the “Mineral Mixes”. Taking note of this fact, with effect from 1.4.97, the quantity of 0.227 MT/MT as referred to above, was bifurcated into two parts namely, (i)Vitamin Mixes = 0.027
MT/MT and (ii)Mineral Mixes = 0.200 MT/MT. Vide letter No.3/36/9798/P&I dated 25.5.98, all the customs authorities were advised not to allow clearance of Vitamin Mixes beyond a quantity of 0.027 MT/MT of export.
2. Instructions have now been sought as to in what manner requests for revalidation in such cases should be dealt with. The matter has been carefully examined. All the Licensing Authorities are hereby advised that while considering the requests of revalidation of such advance licences issued prior to 1.4.1997, the consolidated quantity of vitamin Mixes/ Mineral Mixes of 0.027 MT/ MT should be bifurcated into two parts, namely (i)vitamin mixes = 0.027 MT/MT and (ii)Mineral Mixes = 0.200 MT/MT. Similar action should also be taken in respect of advance licences issued on or after 1.4.1997 where the benefit of paragraph 66 of Export and Import Policy 1996-97 has been granted permitting the consolidated quantity of 0.227 MT/MT for vitamin mixes/ mineral mixes.
All the licensing authorities are advised to follow these instructions strictly.
This issues with the approval of Director General of Foreign Trade.
Yours faithfully,
(L.K.BATRA)
Jt. Director General of Foreign Trade
Copy for information to:-
Jt. DGFTs (DES/Policy Division)/Dy.DGFTs(DES)/All Sections of DES Division in Headquarters.”
From the aforesaid circular, it is apparent that prior to 01.04.1997 under standard norms against the export of 1 MT of frozen Headon/ Headless shrimps, one of the inputs permitted for import was vitamin mixes / mineral mixes to the extent of 0.227 MT/MT consolidatedly. Taking note of the fact that some of the exporters were importing only vitamin mixes for the entire permissible quantity of 0.227 MT/MT without importing the mineral mixes, with effect from 01.04.1997 the quantity of 0.227 MT/MT was bifurcated into two parts (i)vitamin mixes = 0.027 MT/MT and (ii)mineral mixes = 0.200 MT/MT and vide letter no.3/36/97-98/P&I dated 25.05.1998, all the customs authorities were advised not to allow clearance of vitamin mixes beyond a quantity of 0.027 MT/MT of export. Accordingly, all the licensing authorities were advised that while considering the requests of revalidation of advance licences issued prior to 01.04.1997, the consolidated quantity should be 0.027 MT/MT in respect of vitamin mixes and 0.200 MT/MT for mineral mixes. It was also categorically stated in the said circular that such condition should be taken into consideration in respect of advance licences issued on or after 01.04.1997 where the benefit of para 66 of Export and Import Policy 1996-97 has been granted permitting the consolidated quantity of 0.227 MT/MT for vitamin mixes/mineral mixes.
10.In the present case, the first respondent was issued with 4 advance licences, prior to 01.04.1997 and at the time of issuance of the same, they were permitted to export the quantity of 200 MT of headed/headless frozen shrimps. However, in terms of the aforesaid circular dated 21.01.1999 subsequently issued, the first respondent ought to have reduced the quantity of vitamin mixes from 227 kg to 27 kg, but they failed to comply with the same. Therefore, the request of the first respondent for revalidation was rejected, by orders dated 22.11.2000. Such rejection was done by the first appellant, based on the decision of the Advance Licensing Committee taken in its meeting no.24/2001 dated 19.10.2000. For better appreciation, the minutes of the ALC in respect of one of the authorisations viz., Advance Licence No.04009928 dated 28.08.1996 are extracted below:
“The committee considered as per agenda. The firm was granted an A/L No.04009928 dated 28.08.1996 for Fish and Fish products. The firm requested to revalidate the same for a further period of six months from the date of endorsement of revalidation of the Advance Licence. As per the report received from RLA, it is observed that at the time of revalidation, the firm was requested to accept the reduced quantity of vitamin mixes i.e. from 227 kgs to 27 kgs, but the firm has not accepted the same and thus the request of the firm was not considered at that time. Thereafter, the firm have not submitted the application for revalidation, but they have submitted the request for waiver and accordingly the waiver was granted on 14.6.1999 by revalidating their licence for a period of twelve months from the date of expiry of the licence (i.e. total thirty months period from the date of issue of license). Since the revalidation has already been granted upto 30 months and there is no provision of revalidation after 30 months from the date of issue of licence, the committee decided not to accede to the request of the firm.”
Thus, it is evident that the claim of the first respondent was rejected, since they have not accepted the reduced quantity of vitamin mixes from 227 to 27 kg, which is mandatory for revalidation of the advance licences granted, as per the circular no.5/98-99 dated 21.01.1999.
11.Another point for rejection of the request of the first respondent was that they have already granted revalidation for 30 months and there is no provision for further revalidation beyond the period of 30 months. The said fact was disputed by the first respondent stating that they did not receive any order/communication relating to further extension of validation of 12 months. However, they made applications seeking revalidation for a further period of six months, even if a time period of 30 months has already expired, placing reliance on the public notice dated 31.3.2001. The said applications were also rejected, by orders dated 05.09.2001 passed by the second appellant for want of details of consumption of vitamin mixes. In this context, the first respondent stated that they have duly complied with all the requirements for revalidation of the licences and the details of vitamin mixes were furnished in its letter dated 21.07.2000 addressed to the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai, but a perusal of the same would disclose nothing about the reduction of quantity of vitamin mixes. For easy understanding, the relevant passage of the said communication is reproduced hereunder:
“(VII) Sir, it is not in dispute that our clients have discharged the export obligations without imports of any item under the subject license and under no provision of the policy, they or the processors were required to maintain any account and the same cannot be asked for after such a long time.
Sir, the licence was issued based the standard input/output norms in force on the date of the application which norms have already been fixed by the DGFT itself and SION does not stipulate that exporter is required to keep account of consumption of inputs, even if the exports, are made prior to any imports or the quantity of goods allowed duty free will be based on the actual consumption. Had it been so, then the concept of SION will be redundant. It is not the case of the department that any imports took place prior to discharge of the export obligations for which my clients could have been called upon to maintain accounts till endorsement of transferability, that being not the case, our clients even otherwise also cannot be asked to do so, after such a long period.”
12.Therefore, it is obvious that the first respondent has not complied with the advice of the appellant authorities to verify the consumption of vitamin mixes in their resultant product as revised vide SALC circular
No.5/98-99 dated 21.1.1999 and hence, the request of the first respondent for revalidation based on the subsequent public notice dated 31.03.2001, could not be considered and the same was rightly rejected by the appellant authorities. Without taking note of this vital factor, the learned Judge erred in allowing the writ petitions and directing the appellants to revalidate the licences of the first respondent.
13.It may not be out of sight to point out here that when the order of the learned Judge was placed for action, the Policy Relaxation Committee in its meeting No.41/AM12 dated 21.02.2012, decided that the said order was not feasible for compliance. The said minutes are extracted below for ready reference:
“Case No.21. M/s.Vishal Exports Overseas Limited,
F.No.01/85/162/066/am12/DES-VI/PC-4
PRC Meeting No.41/AM12 dated: 21.02.2012
Subject: The Hon’ble Madras High Court vide common order passed on WP filed by M/s.Vishal Exports Overseas Limited, allowed the WP and directed to revalidate the licence No.(i)04009928 dated 28.8.1996 (ii)04009844 dated 20.8.1996 (iii)04010868 dt. 16.1.1997 (iv)04009721 dt. 24.7.1997.
The committee noted the directions of the Hon’ble High Court for revalidation of the 4 authorizations of M/s.Vishal Exports Overseas Limited, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the Court’s order. The committee noted and regretted the delay in taking up the case regarding implementing the decision. The Committee noted that the revalidation of various authorizations is granted in most exceptional circumstances only where the authorizations had expired in the custody of Govt. authority like DGFT/Customs. The aforesaid circumstances do not exist in the instant case. The committee also noted that revalidation was not a matter of right and that the firm earlier did not accept the reduced qty. of inputs and despite having provided a validity of 30 months they did not undertake imports. It was noted that all authorizations pertain to the period of 1996 and 1997 and that at this distance of time there was no merit to revalidate these 4 authorizations. The Committee therefore rejected the request of the firm.”
Based on the aforesaid decision of the Police Relaxation Committee, the first appellant sent a communication dated …04.2012 to the first respondent, which can be usefully extracted below:
F.No.01/85/162/0066/AM12/DES-VI/PC4
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE
UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI – 110 011
Dated: 04/12
To
M/s.Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd
Vishal House, Opp. Sales India, Sehino Oriental Bank of Commerce Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.
Sub: Order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.Nos.5842, 6481, 6488, 6489/2001 & W.P.Nos.7814-17/2002 filed by M/s.Vishal Exports Overseas Limited., regarding revalidation of Advance Licence Nos(1)/04009828 dated. 28.08.1996 (ii)04009844 dated 20.08.96 (iii)04010868 dated 16.01.97 (iv)04009721 dated. 24.07.97.
…
Sir,
This is with reference to the order dated 29.04.11 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the W.P.Nos.5842, 6481, 6488, 6489/2001 & W.P.Nos.7814-7817/2002 filed by you. The Hon’ble High Court ordered:
“In the result the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are quashed and the respondents are directed to revalidate their licences in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs”.
2.There is no provision in the current Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) to allow a revalidation of licences pertaining to the period 1996 & 1997. As per the present policy, the revalidation of licences can be done as per paragraph 2.13 of the Hand Book of Procedure Volume 1 (HBP V 1) which is reproduced below:
2.13. RA concerned may revalidate import Authorisation on merits, for six months from date of expiry of validity. However, Export Licence may only be revalidated by R.A. concerned on recommendation of DGFT for six months at a time and maximum upto 12 months from date of expiry of validity.
2.13.1 However, revalidation of freely transferable Authorization / Duty credit scrips and stock and sale Authorization shall not be permitted unless validity has expired while in custody of customs authority/RA.
2.13.2 Such revalidation (under 2.13 and 2.13.1 above) would be permitted under specific orders of Head of concerned office and would be maximum up to the extent of custody period.
2.13.3 An application for revalidation (including for restricted items, may be made to RA concerned. RA would consider such application as per government rules / notifications. Where DGFT is concerned authority, Original application shall be submitted to RA concerned and self-attested copy of same shall be submitted to DGFT.
3. Since the above mentioned cases are not covered under the provisions of FTP the matter was placed before the Policy Relaxation PRC (PRC), constituted under the Chairmanship of Director General of
Foreign Trade (DGFT) in terms of paragraph 2.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy (PRC) in its meeting No.41/AM12 held on 21.02.2012. The PRC noted that the revalidation of various authorizations is granted in most exceptional circumstances only where the authorizations had expired in the custody of Government authority like DGFT/Customs. The aforesaid circumstances do not exist in the instant case. The PRC also noted that revalidation was not a matter of right and that the firm earlier did not accept the reduced qty. of inputs and despite having provided a validity of 30 months they did not undertake imports. It was noted that all authorizations pertain to the period of 1996 and 1997 and that at this distance of time, there was no merit to revalidate these 4 authorizations. The PRC therefore rejected the request. A copy of the minutes of PRC meeting is enclosed. The same can also be downloaded from the DGFT website – http://dgft.gov.in.
Yours faithfully
(C.Gangadharan)
Dy.Director General of Foreign Trade
….”
14.Therefore, this court is of the opinion that when there is specific instruction by way of executive order, to satisfy the requirement pertaining to reduction of quantity of vitamin mixes, the same cannot be slightly brushed by the learned Judge by observing that there is no requirement to furnish individual consumption details of vitamin mixes, as per the import export policy for 1992-97. The appellant authorities have been all along instructing the first respondent to furnish the consumption details relating to reduction of quantity of vitamin mixes, on the basis of the circular dated 21.01.1999. Since the first respondent failed to comply with the said requirement, their request for revalidation was rejected by the appellant authorities. Such orders were based on the decisions of the two committees, viz., ALC and PRC, pursuant to the executive instructions given by the authority concerned, cannot be interfered with by the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the settled law that when the authorities are having sufficient reasons to have such a policy decision to impose certain conditions in the circular, power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a decision. It has been repeatedly held that courts will not ordinarily interfere with such decisions, when the same are taken in the public interest. In this connection, it will be useful to refer to the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
(i)Parisons Agrotech Private Limited and another v. Union of India & Others [2015 (9)SCC 657]:
“14. No doubt, the writ court has adequate power of judicial review in respect of such decisions. However, once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution, power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alternatives. Once we find that parameters of Article 14 are satisfied; there was due application of mind in arriving at the decision which is backed by cogent material; the decision is not arbitrary or irrational and; it is taken in public interest, the Court has to respect such a decision of the Executive as the policy making is the domain of the Executive and the decision in question has passed the test of the judicial review.”
“16. The power of the Court under writ jurisdiction has been discussed in Asif Hameed and Others. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others (1989 Supp (2) SCC 364) in paras 17 and 19, which read as under:
’17. Before adverting to the controversy directly involved in these appeals we may have a fresh look on the inter se functioning of the three organs of democracy under our Constitution. Although the doctrine of separation of powers has not been recognised under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity but the Constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State. Legislature, executive and judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated under the Constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another. The Constitution trusts to the judgment of these organs to function and exercise their discretion by strictly following the procedure prescribed therein. The functioning of democracy depends upon the strength and independence of each of its organs. Legislature and executive, the two facets of people’s will has no power over sword or the purse nonetheless it has power to ensure that the aforesaid two main organs of State function within the constitutional limits. It is the sentinel of democracy. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. The expanding horizon of judicial review has taken in its fold the concept of social and economic justice. While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on our own exercise of power is the selfimposed discipline of judicial restraint.
19. When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers.’
19. We would also like to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Premier Tyres Limited v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (1993 Supp. 2 SCC 146) wherein this Court held that when a policy decision is taken in the public interest, Courts need not tinker with the same.” (ii)RDB Textiles Ltd. v. CCE [(2018) 14 SCC 42]:
“19. Equally, it is clear that circulars that are issued by the Ministry of Finance are binding on the department of Central Excise, there being no judgment by this Court laying down the law contrary to such circulars. This is a well-settled proposition as laid down in para 30 of CIT v. Trans Asian
Shipping Services (P) Limited [(2016) 8 SCC 604].”
15.Applying the aforesaid legal proposition to the facts of the present case, wherein, it was categorically decided by the Committees that in the absence of consumption details relating to vitamin mixes, as required in the circular issued by the appellant authorities, the request of the first respondent seeking revalidation could not be acceded to; and that, there is no provision in the current foreign trade policy to allow a revalidation of licence pertaining to the period of 1996 and 1997, this court cannot compel the appellant authorities to revalidate the licences of the first respondent. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge, allowing the writ petitions filed by the first respondent, by setting aside the rejection orders passed by the appellant authorities and issuing a consequential direction, is liable to be set aside.
16.Accordingly, the order of the learned Judge dated 29.04.2011 passed in the writ petitions is set aside and these appeals are allowed as prayed for.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.M.D., J.) (J.S.N.P., J.)
30.06.2022

rsh
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
To
1.The Commissioner of Customs
Customs House
Rajaji Salai
Chennai – 600 001
2. Director General of Foreign Trade
Government of India
Udyog Bhavan
New Delhi 110 001
R. MAHADEVAN, J and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J
rsh/rk
3. The Zonal Joint Director of Foreign Trade
Government of India
Ministry of Commerce
Shastri Bhavan Annexe
26, Haddows Road Chennai – 600 006
formerly No.38 & 39, Whites Road Chennai 600 014
4. The Secretary, Union of India
Ministry of Finance
North Block, Central Secretariat New Delhi 110 001
5. The Secretary, Union of India
Ministry of Commerce
Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001
WA Nos. 823 to 830 of 2016
30.06.2022