AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Sudhakar, J.—The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to accept the transferable DFIA
license issued under Standard Input Output Norms (SION) E1 & E5 as clarified in circular dated 31.7.2008 read with policy circular No.
72/2008, dated 24.3.2009 issued by the first respondent herein, which permits the import of lactose as an alternative for sugar and without
application of the circulars dated 23.9.2010 and 31.1.2011 issued by the first respondent herein, by holding that the rights accrued under the
license on the date of its issue shall govern the import of goods permitted under the license within the validity period of the said license and
consequently direct the 5th respondent to assess and clear the impugned goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 7590365, dated 6.8.2012 against
the transferred license by extending the benefit of Notification No. 98/2009, dated 11.9.2009 as amended. The brief facts culled out from the
pleadings of the parties are as under. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern. They import various items used in pharmaceutical, beverage, food
and other industries. In the course of business, they have entered into an agreement with one Kawarlal & Co., Chennai for purchase of 400 Kgs.
of Lactose. The said Kawarlal & Co. imported a consignment of Lactose and the said consignment was kept in the Customs Warehouse under
Warehouse Bill of Entry No. 6689020, dated 30.4.2012 with In-bond Reference No. 2000281547, dated 11.5.2012. The said Kawarlal & Co.
sold the consignment under In-bond Sales Invoice No. Bond/2012-13/000052, dated 4.8.2012. On purchase of the Lactose through In-bond
sales, the petitioner filed Ex-bond Bill of Entry No. 7590365, dated 6.8.2012 before the Customs Department, Chennai for clearance of the
goods under DFIA License No. 0710070929 stating that it has been duly endorsed for transferability by the competent authority in terms of the
Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. It is under this transferred DFIA License that the goods are sought to be cleared.
Insofar as the license in issue is concerned, the said DFIA License No. 0710070929, dated 15.4.2010 was originally issued to Britannia
Industries, Bangalore, as actual manufacturer. On completion of the export obligation, Britannia Industries obtained an endorsement with regard to
transferability on 6.12.2010. Thereafter, on 17.12.2010, Britannia Industries transferred the said license to Rishab Enterprises, Chennai for
valuable consideration. The said license was thereafter transferred from Rishab Enterprises to Golcha Enterprises on 4.1.2012. Later on Golcha
Enterprises transferred the said license in favour of the petitioner on 3.2.2012.
The goods in question, namely Lactose, were consigned in favour of Kawarlal & Co., Chennai, as stated earlier, under Bill of Lading dated
14.4.2012 and the said company filed In-bond Bill of Entry on 30.4.2012. On 4.8.2012, the In-bond Sales Agreement was entered into between
Kawarlal & Co. and the petitioner for sale of 400 Kgs. of Lactose and on the same day, the In-Bond Sales Invoice was raised. On 6.8.2012, an
Ex-bond Bill of Entry No. 7590365 was filed and the Customs Department raised the following query on 6.8.2012: ""Please refer to the Circular
No. 13, dated 31.1.2011 (DGFT). The import of Lactose as alternative input is not allowed under DFIA."" Challenging the said stand of the
department refusing to allow clearance, as above, the writ petition is filed.
Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Policy Circular No. 13, dated 31.1.2011 will apply
to an import license issued on and after the said date and it will not affect the rights accrued by virtue of the license already granted, more
particularly in a case where export obligation has been discharged and transferability has been endorsed.
To bolster the argument that the rights will accrue to the license holder based on the date of issuance of the license and the subsequent
clarification or change in policy will have no bearing on the existing right under the license granted, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on
the following decisions:
(i) S.B. International Ltd. and Others Vs. Asstt. Director General of Foreign Trade and Others, . The said case relates to a claim under duty
exemption scheme and the date on which it becomes effective. The issue that was clarified is that the norms in vogue on the date of issue of license
govern the license. In paragraph (8) of the said decision, the Supreme Court held as under: ""8. The first question in these appeals is whether a
vested right accrued to the appellant for issuance of advance licences as per the value addition norm in vogue on the date of filing of the said
applications the moment it made those applications and whether any subsequent change in policy effected before the issuance of licences, is not
applicable to such licences. For answering this question, one has to look to the policy itself, the material clauses of which have already been set
out. The said provisions make it clear that the object behind the Scheme is to enable the exporter to import raw materials, components etc.
required for the purpose of producing goods for export. It is a facility provided by the Government an incentive. There is no right to advance
licence apart from the policy. No citizen has a fundamental right to import, much less import free of duty. By granting the advance licence, the
licensing authority tells the licensee I am permitting you to import raw material, components etc. of a particular value free of duties but you must
export goods of a particular value (determined as per value addition norm in vogue on the date of licence) within a particular date. If you fail to do
so, you will be liable to levy of penalties and other action according to law. The duty-free import of raw materials etc. is permitted to enable the
exporter to sell his goods abroad at a more competitive price, thereby fetching precious foreign exchange for the country. Mere making of an
application does not create any right in the applicant since he has no pre-existing right to such licence. His right is only that which is given by the
policy. The situation could have been different if the policy had said that a person exporting goods of a particular value shall be entitled to an import
licence of a particular value; in such a case, the export of goods can be said to create a right in the applicant to get an import licence of the
specified value. Here is a case, where one has to ask for an import licence promising to export goods of a particular value within a particular time.
It is difficult to appreciate how can it be said in such a situation that mere filing of an application creates a vested legal right to obtain a licence
according to the value addition norm in vogue on the date of the application. It is the date of licence that is relevant and not the date of application
therefor. It is obvious that the norm (value addition norm) in vogue on the date of grant of licence shall govern the licence. The mere fact that the
authorities have a discretion to take into account the exports made after the date of application for advance licences makes no difference to this
position; it is in the nature of yet another concession. What is relevant is that the licence granted under Chapter VII of the policy is an advance
licence. It is granted in advance of export rather to enable the export. The theory of a vested right accruing to the applicant to get a licence as per
the norms in force on the date of application is inconceivable in such a situation unless, of course, the policy itself says so.
(emphasis supplied)
(ii) A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sonia Fisheries and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, reiterated the above legal position
following the Apex Court decision, referred to above. It was held in paragraphs (9) and (10) as under:
Considering the aforesaid paragraphs of the Import & Export Policy, it is apparent that to the Petitioners quantity based Advance Licence was
given on the condition of fulfilling their export obligations as stated in the Advance Licence. With regard to export there is no dispute. Paragraph 51
of the Export & Import Policy specifically provides that in respect of quantity based Advance Licences for which standard input-output norms
have not been published, the quantitative norms will be as specified by the competent authority. On the basis of the said policy after considering the
petitioners Application and after verifying the facts from them the Petitioners were given Advance Licence by reducing the quantity and also
amount. One of the conditions of the said Licence is as under:
(i) This licence shall be subject to the conditions in force relating to the goods covered by the licence as described in the relevant import Trade
Control Policy Book, or any amendment thereof made upto and including the date of issue of the licence, unless otherwise specified.
This term itself indicates that the relevant date for grant of Advance Licence is the date of issue of licence and the licence was only subject to the
conditions relating to the goods covered by the licence or amendment thereof made up to and including the date of issue of the licence unless
otherwise specified. Therefore, it cannot be said that even though the Petitioners have complied with their obligation of export, when the Petitioners
asked for endorsement of transferability on the basis of complying with the conditions of exporting the goods, the authority was entitled to withhold
or suspend it and change the material terms of the licence, which permitted the Petitioners to import duty free goods as per the advance licence. It
cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the norms published on 20th January, 1995 would have retrospective effect so as to permit the
authorities to cancel or modify the Advance Licence granted prior to the said date, that too in cases where the Petitioners have fulfilled their export
obligations. Paragraph 51 of the Export & Import Policy itself provides that where norms are not fixed the quantity norms will be as specified by
the competent authority and in the present case the Competent Authority after considering the Petitioners application has granted Advance Licence
in September, 1993. That licence could not be modified on the basis of the norms passed on 20th January, 1995. This would be totally arbitrary
action. That norms cannot have any retrospective effects so as to adversely affect the rights granted to the Petitioners under Licence. The norms
prescribed will take effect only from the date of its publication i.e., from 20th January, 1995 and not from the earlier date.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners for this purpose relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of S.B.
International Ltd. and Others Vs. Asstt. Director General of Foreign Trade and Others, . In that case the Court was required to consider whether
a vested right accruing to the Appellant for issuance of advance licences as per the value addition norm in vogue on the date of filing of the
applications and whether any subsequent change in policy effected before the issuance of licences, is not applicable to such licences. In that context
the Supreme Court observed as under:
By granting the advance licence, the Licensing authority tells the licensee I am permitting you to import raw material, components etc., of a
particular value free of duties but you must export goods of a particular value (determined as per value addition norm in vogue on the date of
licence) within a particular date. If you fail to do so, you will be liable to levy of penalties and other action according to law. The duty free import of
raw materials etc., is permitted to enable the exporter to sell his goods abroad at a more competitive price, thereby fetching precious foreign
exchange for the country. Mere making of an application does not create any right in applicant since he has no pre-existing right to such licence.
Thereafter the Court pertinently observed as under:
It is the date of licence that is relevant and not the date of application therefor. It is obvious that the norm (value addition norm) in vogue on the
date of grant of licence shall govern the licence.
It is, therefore, obvious that grant of Advance Licence depends upon the policy prevailing as on the date of such grant. Once a licence is granted, it
could not be revoked or modified merely on the ground that the value addition norm was changed. Further, even the new policy and the norms do
not provide that Advance Licences granted earlier should be modified accordingly.
(emphasis supplied)
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Jain Exports (P) Ltd. and Another Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Others, to canvas the plea that the import policy prevalent at the time of issuance of the license would apply to goods
covered by imports made under that license and the subsequent change in policy will be of no consequence. A similar view was taken by a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ashok Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India (UOI), . In paragraph (4) of the said decision, the Division
Bench, after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jain Exports (P.) Ltd. Case, supra, observed as follows:
Mr. Jetly learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the importing question would be governed by the import and export policy
applicable for the year AM 91-94 as the import had taken place in June 1992 i.e. after expiry of AM 1988-91. He submitted that though REP
licence was issued when AM 1988-91 was in force, since the import had taken place in June 1992 the REP licence as well as import made under
the REP licence would be governed by the import and export policy in force on the actual date of import and not on the date when the REP
licence was issued. Per Contra, Mr. Rana submitted that import would be governed by import export policy AM 1988-91. In support of his
submission he referred to and relied upon by a decision of the Supreme Court in Jain Exports (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and
Others, . In that case, two consignments of natural coconut oil were imported from Srilanka and arrived at port of destination on 22nd September
1981 and 10th September 1982 respectively. The import was effected in pursuance of a licence which was issued in the year 1980-81 but the
goods were actually imported after the policy had expired and new policy had come into force. In paragraph no. 2 of the decision, Supreme Court
posed the questions which had arisen for its consideration. The question no. 1 was
(1) The import policy of which year would be applicable to the present case - the period during which the licences were issued or the time when
the import actually took place
In paragraph no. 3 of the decision, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had come to the correct conclusion to the terms of import policy of
1980-81 (i.e. period during which the licence was issued) would apply. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, we have no doubt that the
import in question which was effected in pursuance of a REP Licence dated 13th December 1990, would be governed by the import export policy
of AM 1988-91.
Based on the above said decisions, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that in the case on hand the license was originally issued to
Britannia Industries; the export obligation has already been discharged; the license has been endorsed for transferability; and they are eligible to
import items in terms of the license and the DGFT clarification dated 31.7.2008.
Another point canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is the endorsement in the license, which reads as follows:
The licence shall be subject to the conditions in force relating to the goods covered by the licence and the class of importers as described in the
relevant Export-Import Policy and Handbook of procedures, or any amendment thereof made upto and including the date of issue of the licence,
unless otherwise specified."" It is pointed out that the Import-Export Policy and Handbook of Procedures that covers the license is of the year
2009-2014 and the clarification issued by the DGFT dated 31.7.2008.
Mr. D. Vijaykumar, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 referred to the Public Notice No. 84/2009-14, dated 23.7.2010, clarification dated
23.9.2010 and the Policy Circular No. 13, dated 31.1.2011 to state that the imports in the present consignment took place only after the said
public notice, clarification and policy circular have been issued and therefore the license will not be valid for the import in question and clearly the
query raised by the department is justified.
In reply to the said contention, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conditions imposed vide the
Public Notice dated 23.7.2010, clarification dated 23.9.2010 and the Policy Circular dated 31.1.2011 will apply only to a license issued on and
after that date and it will not effect the validity of the license in question issued on 15.4.2010, which has got validity up to 14.4.2012.
On a plea made by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 that the In-bond Sale
Invoice is dated 4.8.2012, which is after the expiry of the license period, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the Bill
of Lading was issued on 14.4.2012 in favour of Kawarlal & Co., and In-bond Bill of Entry was filed on 30.4.2012 and the import is saved by
paragraph 9.11A read with paragraphs 2.12.1 and 2.12.2 of the Handbook of Procedures, 2009-2014, which read as follows:
11A Date of shipment/dispatch for imports will be reckoned as under:
Mode of Transportation
Date of Shipment/Dispatch
(i) By Sea The date affixed on the Bill of Lading
(ii) By Air Date of relevant Airway Bill provided this represents date on which goods left last airport in the country from which the import is
effected.
(iii) From land-locked countries Date of dispatch of goods by rail, road or other recognised mode of transport to consignee in India through
consignment basis.
(iv) By Post Parcel Date stamp of office of dispatch on the packet or dispatch note.
(v) By Registered Courier Service Date affixed on Courier Receipt/Waybill
(vi) Multimodal transport Date of handing over goods to first carrier in a combined transport Bill of Lading.
....
2.12.1. Where an Authorisation expires during the month, such Authorisation shall be deemed to be valid until last day of concerned month. This
proviso would be applicable even for a revalidated Authorisation.
2.12.2. Validity of an import Authorisation is decided with reference to date of shipment/dispatch of goods from supplying country as given in
Paragraph 9.11A of HBP v1 and not the date of arrival of goods at an Indian port
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also referred to In-bond sale invoice dated 4.8.2012 and pointed out that it is referable to the Bill
of Entry dated 30.4.2012.
The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner and the counter made by the respondents is based on the various communication,
clarifications and circulars issued by the DGFT from time to time and a reference to the following circulars is relevant for the purpose of deciding
this case:
(i) Clarification No. 01/94/180/151/AM 09/PC 4, dated 31.7.2008:
No. 01/94/180/151/AM 09/PC 4
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE
UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110011
Dated: 31.7.2008
To:
Commissioner of Customs (Exports)
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
33, Rajaji Salai, Customs-House
Chennai 600001.
Kind Attention: Shri C. Rangaraju, Joint Commissioner of Customs, Group 7 DEEC/
Subject: Clarification on import of Lactose (Pharma Grade) in respect of DFIA 0310434384 dated 28.6.07 issued to M/s. Laxmi International
and transferred in the name of M/s. Kawarlal & Co., Chennai regarding.
Sir,
With reference to your letter No. S. Misc/425/2006-Gr.7-DEEC dated 16.7.08 on the above mentioned subject, I have been directed to inform
you that the matter was examined in consultation with the Administrative Ministry i.e., Directorate of Sugar, Department of Food and Public
Distribution, who, in turn sought inputs from Technical authorities such as National Sugar Institute, Powai (Mumbai) etc.
Taking into account the inputs received from the aforesaid Technical authorities and the provisions of Customs Circular No. 46/2007-Cus.
Dated 20.12.07 to be read with inputs allowed under relevant DFIA for import of Sugar (as per relevant SION) as well as the contents of
paragraph 4.55.3 of HBP Vol. 1, I have been directed to inform you that Sugar in the form of Lactose (Pharma Grade) can be imported against
the aforesaid DFIA, referred in your letter.
This issues with the approval of competent authority.
(ii) DGFT Policy Circular No. 72/2008, dated 24.3.2009:
POLICY CIRCULAR NO. 72 (RE-08)/2004-2009
Dated 24.3.2009
To
All Regional Authorities;
All Commissioners of Customs;
Trade and Industry
Subject: Importability of Alternative inputs allowed as per SION under DFIA Scheme.
Representations have been received from the trade and industry that a doubt has arisen in the field formations of customs on the issue of allowing
alternative inputs as per SION under DFIA scheme, even if the input mentioned in the SION, has not been specifically utilized in the manufacture
of the exported product.
The matter was examined in detail and it has been decided to clarify to all concerned that since the objective of SION is to allow duty free
import of the inputs which are actually used or are capable of being used in the export product, the exporter has the flexibility to import the
alternative input/product mentioned in the SION.
This issues with the approval of DGFT.
Sd/-
(Tapan Mazumder)
Joint Director General of Foreign Trade
(iii) Public Notice No. 84/2009-14, dated 23.7.2010:
Public Notice No. 84/2009-14, Dated 23.7.2010
In exercise of the powers conferred under Paragraph 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14 and Paragraph 1.1 of the Handbook of
Procedures (Vol. I), the Director General of Foreign Trade hereby makes the following amendments/corrections in the Handbook of Procedures,
Vol. 2, 2009-2014, as amended from time to time.
In the statement of Standard Input Output Norms (SION) as contained in the Handbook of Procedure (Vol. 2), 2009-2014, as amended from
time to time, amendments at appropriate place as mentioned in ANNEXURE A to this Public Notice are made.
This issues in Public interest.
sd/-
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE
and EX-OFFICIO SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
(Issued from File No. 01/85/162/412/AM10/DES. VI)
Annexure A to the Public Notice No. 84/2009-2014 Dated: 23.07.2010
AMENDMENTS/CORRECTIONS
In the existing SION E-1 and SION E-5, note be included as under:-
Note for E-1:- Import item at Sl. No. 1, 2 & 3 shall be allowed with actual user condition & with accountability of actual use on the export side.
Note for E-5:- Import item at Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 shall be allowed with actual user condition & with accountability of actual use on the export
side.
(iv) Clarification F. No. 01/94/180/141/AM9/PC-4/DES. VI/394, dated 23.9.2010:
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE and INDUSTRY
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE
UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
F. No. 01/94/180/141/AM9/PC-4/DES. VI/394
dated 23.9.2010
To:
M/s. Kawarlal & Co.
27, Raghunayakulu Street
Chennai 600003.
Subject: Import of Lactose under DFIA reg.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter dated 2.9.2010 on the above mentioned subject and to inform that in its meeting held on 10.6.2010, Norms
Committee decided that no further import of Lactose may be allowed as an alternate input to sugar under SION E-1 & E-5 till Norms Committee
is in a position to check accountability condition of Lactose usage in export product and quantify the same.
Letter dated 17.6.2010 issued to Customs is based on the above decision.
(v) Policy Circular No. 13, dated 31.1.2011:
Policy Circular No. 13, Dated 31.1.2011
To
All Regional Authorities
All Customs Authorities
Subject: Import of inputs under Advance Authorisation (AA) and Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) issued SIONs E-1 & E-5 reg.
Attention is invited to the Policy Circular No. 72(RE-08)/2004-2009 dated. 24.03.2009 regarding importability of alternative inputs allowed as
per SION under DFIA Scheme.
The Standard Input-Output Norms (SION) for Biscuits (with or without dry fruits) are at Sl. No. E-5 and for Assorted Confectionery at Sl.
No. E-1. The import of inputs allowed allowed under SION E-5 and SION and SION E-1 do not include Tapioca Starch, Wheat Gluten, and
Lactose/Fructose/Maltose/Mannitol/Sodium Saccharin/Artificial sweetening Agents.
Therefore, (i) import of Tapioca Starch and Wheat Gluten as alternative inputs against import item No. 1 of SION E-5 and, (ii) import of
Lactose/Fructose/Maltose/Mannitol/Sodium Saccharin/Artificial Sweetening Agents, as alternative inputs against import items No. 2 of SION E-5
and import item No. 1(a) of SION E-1, is not to be allowed, under Advance Authorisations and Duty Free Import Authorisations issued against
SIONs E-1 and E-5.
This issues with the approval of Director General of Foreign Trade.
Sd/-
(Vibha Bhalla)
Joint Director General of Foreign Trade
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the original licence was issued on 15.4.2010 and its validity is for a period of two years ending
14.4.2012. The transferability endorsement was made on 6.12.2010. Therefore, the license is valid till 30.4.2012 for shipments or imports made
under the said license, in terms of paragraph 9.11A read with paragraphs 2.12.1 and 2.12.2 of the Handbook of Procedures, 2009-2014. Hence,
the contention of the respondent/department that the imports are not covered by a valid license cannot be countenanced. It is also not in dispute
that the Bill of Lading in this case was issued on 14.4.2012 and In-bond Bill of Entry was filed on 30.4.2012. Therefore, the license covers the
import and there cannot be any dispute on its validity in relation to the import.
Insofar as the issue relating to the applicability of the Public Notice dated 23.7.2010, the Clarification dated 23.9.2010 and the Policy Circular
dated 31.1.2011 is concerned, the same may not apply to a valid license, the transferability of which is endorsed. It is to be noticed that the
clarification issued by the Ministry of Commerce dated 31.7.2008 and the DGFT Policy Circular dated 24.3.2009, which were in force prior to
issuance of license in question dated 15.4.2010, will be made applicable to the license, as it extends the benefits of flexibility to import the
alternative input/product mentioned in the SION and that appears to be the main tenor of the petitioner''s plea seeking release of the Lactose
stating that the clarification and the circular which were in force at the time of issuance of license will be applicable to the goods imported and not
the subsequent clarifications.
The said contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is no doubt justified in view of the decision of the Supreme
Court in S.B. International Ltd. case, supra, which has been extracted above, wherein it has been held in categoric terms that the norms that are
applicable on the date on which the license is issued will be valid in respect of goods imported under the said license.
The above said view of the Supreme Court has been followed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sonia Fisheries,
supra, wherein it was emphatically held that the policy prevailing on the date of grant of advance license will apply. A similar view was taken by the
Supreme Court in Jain Exports (P.) Ltd. case, supra.
Since the license in this case was issued on 15.4.2010 and on the date on which the license was issued the clarification dated 31.7.2008 and
the DGFT Policy Circular dated 24.3.2009 were in force, the license would get the benefit of the said clarification and the DGFT Policy Circular.
Subsequent change in policy by way of Public Notice No. 84/2009-14, dated 23.7.2010, clarification dated 23.9.2010 and the Policy Circular
No. 13, dated 31.1.2011 will have no consequence in respect of the license that has already been issued. Accordingly, the said issue is decided in
favour of the petitioner. Insofar as the validity of the import is concerned, which is questioned by the respondents on the ground that the In-bond
Sales invoice is dated 4.8.2012 and therefore the import is not valid, I am unable to accept such a plea in view of the specific provision contained
in paragraph 9.11A read with paragraphs 2.12.1 and 2.12.2 of the Handbook of Procedures, 2009-2014, referred to above. Therefore, the Bill
of Lading issued on 14.4.2012 coupled with the In-Bond Bill of Entry 4.8.2012 will cover the import in question in terms of the above paragraphs
of the Handbook of Procedures, 2009-2014 and the endorsement made by the Assessing Authority refusing to grant clearance of the goods is
bad.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2012 is closed.