M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing minutes of 'Norms Committee Meeting' dated 22 -3 -2007 (P -12), order dated 9 -9 -1991 (P -7) and order dated 7 -6 -1999 (P -9), passed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has reduced import entitlement of the petitioner and directed it to deposit duty and interest. A further prayer for quashing order dated 28 -5 -2007 (P -13) has also been made by which respondent No. 2 has advised different authorities not to allow any incentive to the petitioner till further order. Still further a direction has been sought against respondent No. 2 to issue redemption certificate to the petitioner. Brief facts may first be noticed. The petitioner, which is a public limited company, applied for advance licence under the provisions of the Exim Policy, vide application dated 20 -7 -1989 (P -1), declaring various items to be imported and product to be exported. Since in the process of manufacture of final product, some waste is generated the petitioner in respect of import of Taffeta fabrics declared waste as "Net to net as per policy". In November 1989, the petitioner started exporting goods on the basis of application filed with respondent No. 2. On 11 -12 -1989, advance licence No. 3310491, was issued by respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner thereby entitling it to import the following goods:
(2.) THE petitioner was to discharge export obligation as per stipulation made in the aforementioned licence that 'Cotton/Polyester velur readymade garments with zips and taffeta cloth and zips also to be fitted with cotton hosiery knitwears. The quantity of polyester yarn should not be less than 38490 Kg.' (P -2). During November 1989 and December 1990, the petitioner exported 59 consignments of garments and used 81488 Mtrs. Taffeta fabrics in this process. The case of the petitioner regarding partial import of goods and discharge of export obligation was placed before the Regional Advance Licensing Committee (for short 'ALC'), which approved the same in its meeting held on 12 -11 -1990.
(3.) ON 29 -12 -1990, the petitioner requested respondent No. 1 to rectify the mistake occurred in its earlier letter dated 8 -10 -1990 in mentioning the quantity of resultant export product and intimated the correct quantity as 38490 Kgs. (P -4). On 9 -5 -1991, the petitioner imported 75358 Mtrs. Taffeta fabrics against bill of entry No. 390/45 (P -3). It is appropriate to mention here that till December 1990, the petitioner completed its export obligation but imported goods to the extent of 70% of their import entitlement. The balance quantity was likely to reach India by 25 -5 -1991 and validity period of licence was upto 31 -5 -1991 but due to gulf war supplier could not ship the goods. On 11 -6 -1991, the petitioner applied for revalidation of advance licence showing import and export obligation to be fulfilled as well as obligation actually fulfilled (P -5). The ALC in its meeting held on 9 -9 -1991, considered the matter and decided that quantity of Taffeta cloth be reduced to 39,000 mts. (@ 0.13 sq.m. per garment) from 1,00,000 mtrs. It is claimed that the question before the ALC was rectification of mistake of resultant product but not import entitlement of Taffeta fabrics and the ALC suo motu changed the norms and reduced the import entitlement of the petitioner. On 26 -9 -1991, respondent No. 2 communicated the views of the ALC to the petitioner (P -6 and P -7). On 14 -5 -1992, the Commissioner of Customs -respondent No. 3 accepting that the petitioner has discharged its export obligation, issued 'no objection certificate' to respondent No. 2 (P -8). Despite 'no objection certificate' issued by respondent No. 3, respondent No. 2 issued a demand notice dated 7 -6 -1999 and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,49,366/ - towards duty and Rs. 26,95,897/ - towards interest (P -9). The petitioner approached respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for reconsideration of its case, inasmuch as, it had already discharged the obligation and it was not possible to comply with the demand notice. The matter was thereafter considered in the meetings held on 14 -10 -2004 and 3 -8 -2006 and the same was rejected (P -10).;