- (1.) By this writ application, the petitioner company has challenged the action of the respondents refusing to revalidate the licence of the petitioner and also all proceedings relating thereto including communications dated November 20, 2000, May 21, 2001 and May 24, 2001 and also a public notice dated March 31, 2001 in so far as it excludes the licences which have been endorsed for transferability.
(2.) The case made out by the petitioner may be summed up thus : ( In the month of November, 1994, the petitioner company filed an application for issue of a quantity based advance licence under the Duty Exemption Scheme contained in Export and Import Policy, 1992 - 1997. The said scheme provided for duty free import of raw materials and fulfilment of export obligations. The petitioner after applying for licence commenced exports towards discharge of the obligations and imported raw materials duty free by way of requirement. ( Licence was issued to the petitioner on March 14, 1995 by which time the export obligation to export 4000 MTs of export goods was almost fulfilled by it. The petitioner could thus import duty free, inter alia, 4600 MTs of M.S. Billets under the said licence. However, the said raw materials could not be imported because of poor availability and high price and because the same was not being offered in small lots but only in full chartered load vessels. ( In the month of July, 1997, on the petitioner's application, the respondents amended the said licence to allow import of alternative raw materials viz. Rerollable Scrap and revalidated the licence up to September 30, 1997. ( On November 20, 1997, the petitioner company received the licence revalidated up to December 31, 1997. With great effort it could import about 2,900 MTs and a quantity of 1125 MTs remained to be imported as on December 31, 1997. ( On December 31, 1997, a public notice was issued providing for endorsement of transferability of the licence even if validity thereof had expired if export obligation had been completed on or before December 31, 1997. However, request in this behalf was to be filed by February 20, 1998 and the endorsement was to be made by the authorities latest by March 31, 1998. ( Since the petitioner company fulfilled the requirements of the said public notice, it applied to the respondent No. 1 on 19th February, 1998 for endorsement of transferability on the said licence. ( On March 30, 1998 the petitioner company received a letter dated March 26, 1998 from respondent No. 1 raising various queries and alleging that the benefit of transferability could not be allowed since the petitioner company had availed Modvat credit. ( The petitioner company duly furnished the requisite information and clarified that its request for transferability was only in respect of that quantity for which no Modvat credit was availed of. ( The respondent No. 1 issued a letter to the petitioner company for the purpose of redemption of legal undertaking given by it since it had fulfilled its export obligation. ( Subsequently, on June 4, 1998 a clarificatory amendment was made in the customs notification bearing No. 204/92-Cus., dated May 19, 1992 which made it clear that the facility of transferability was available in respect of the quantity for which no input stage credit i.e. Modvat credit had been availed. ( On July 1, 1998 the petitioner company wrote to the respondent No. 1 drawing his attention to the said amended notification and again requested to allow transferability of the licence since it had not availed Modvat credit in respect of the quantity involved. ( The respondent No. 1 on August 12, 1998 informed the petitioner company that its request could not be considered since Modvat benefit had been availed by it. (m) On September 23, 1998 the petitioner company again represented to the respondent No. 1 and reiterated its request for allowing transferability since no Modvat credit had been availed of in respect of the quantity for which transferability was sought. ( The respondent No. 1 on September 25, 1998 informed the petitioner that its case could not be reopened since 36 months had passed since the issue of licence. ( The petitioner, however, on November 16, 1998 made a representation to the respondent No. 2 pointing out that the period of 36 months had passed for no fault on its part and it could not be penalised. The said respondent was requested to allow endorsement of transferability and extension of validity of the licence. ( On October 1, 1999 public notice was issued by respondent No. 2 making it applicable to a case where endorsement of transferability was not made on the licence because of delayed issuance of customs amendment notification dated June 4, 1998. It was provided that licence would be revalidated and endorsed for transferability even if those had expired and more than 30 months had elapsed from its date of issuance. The licence were to be revalidated up to March 31, 2000 and the authorities were to make necessary endorsements by November 30, 1999 so that the licence holders had four months' time to utilise the licences. ( On October 8, 1999 the petitioner wrote to the respondent No. 1 with reference to the said public notice and requested him to allow revalidation and transferability. ( On November 19, 1999 upon hearing from the office of the respondent No. 1 that the benefit of the said public notice would not be extended to the petitioner company because the export obligation in its case had already been discharged, the petitioner company wrote to the respondent No. 1 pointing out that transferability could be granted only after the export obligation was discharged and the said public notice did not provide that revalidation and transferability could not be made where export obligation was discharged. ( Ultimately on December 31, 1999 the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that its request for revalidation and transferability had been rejected as it had availed Modvat benefit and Modvat reversal certificate had not been produced. The petitioner immediately wrote to the respondent No. 2 pointing out that it had requested for transferability only in respect of quantity for which it had not availed Modvat credit and as such, there was no question of reversing any such credit and that the order dated December 31, 1999 was contrary to law. ( Thereafter the petitioner made several representations and ultimately on March 21, 2000 the petitioner company's contention was accepted and the licence was endorsed for transferability and its validity was extended to March 31, 2000 thus giving only about a week's time to make imports which was an impossible task. ( On April 28, 2000 the petitioner company made a representation to the respondent No. 2 requesting him to permit revalidation of licence for a further period of 3 months since practically no time was granted to it to make the imports. However, on November 20, 2000 the petitioner company was informed that its request had been rejected since there was no provision in the public notice dated October 1, 1999 for revalidation beyond 31st March, 2000. ( On January 1, 2001 the petitioner again represented to the respondent No. 2 pointing out that it was in no way responsible for the belated endorsement made by the respondent authorities for which it was impossible for the petitioner to make the imports and the licence should be revalidated to enable its utilisation. (w) On March 31, 2001 respondent No. 2 issued a public notice to the effect that advance licences would be revalidated for a period of six months where exports had already been completed but licences could not be utilised on account of their expiry. However, licences endorsed for transferability were excluded from the said public notice. ( On April 3, 2001 the petitioner company represented to the respondent No. 2 that there was no basis for excluding licences endorsed with transferability from the scope of the said public notice and that the benefit therein should be granted in respect of the licence of the petitioner company. ( On April 30, 2001 the office of respondent No. 2 wrote to the petitioner stating that its request had been considered and that it should avail revalidation in accordance with public notice dated March 31, 2001 and approached the respondent No. 1 for further action. Accordingly, on May 2, 2001 the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent No. 1 requesting for revalidation in terms of the said public notice. Ultimately, on May 24, 2001 the respondent no. 1 informed the petitioner that the said licence could not be revalidated and that its case had been rejected.
(3.) Being dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ application.;