R.B. and Sons vs Director General of Foreign Trade, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade and Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Admittedly, the petitioner is the second transferee of licence No. 0410001482 granted for exporting leather and leather

products by the Import and Export Control Trade Organisation, Chennai on 22.09.1999. Originally, the licence was granted in the name of Sri

Shanmuga Prime Tannery and thereafter, transferred in favour of one M/s. M.B. Vir Enterprises, from whom it was transferred to the petitioner.

The advance licence granted to Sri Shanmuga Prime Tannery was transferred in favour of the first transferee viz., M/s. M.B. Vir Enterprises, on

the following condition:

The Advance Licence is made transferable as per para 7.19 of Export Policy 1997-2002 read with para 7.27 of Handbook of Procedures (Vol.

I) 1997-2002.

Paragraph 7.27(ii) of the Handbook of Procedures, which deals with transferability of licence reads as follows:-

Upon endorsement of transferability, issue of duplicate licence, enhancement in the cif value or amendments including revalidation shall not be

allowed"".

It is therefore clear that neither the first transferee nor the subsequent transferee, viz., the petitioner herein are entitled for revalidation of the

licence.

In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the licencing officers of the third respondent had seized the impugned licence from the petitioner along

with the other documents in connection with certain investigation on 23.04.2001 and returned the same only on 16.08.2001, knowing fully well

that the licence itself was valid only during the period 20.02.2001 to 20.08.2001. It is therefore obvious that the third respondent restrained the

petitioner to reap the fruits of the licence during the period 23.04.2001 to 16.08.2001, under the guise of alleged investigation. Since the said

period falls within the period of validity of the licence, I am of the considered opinion that the request of the petitioner to extend the validity period

of the licence cannot be rejected merely by quoting paragraph 7.27(ii) of the Handbook of Procedures.

It is true that as per Paragraph 7.27(ii) of the Handbook of Procedures, the transferee is not entitled for revalidation. In my considered opinion,

the question of re-validation does not at all arise in the instant case as the request of the petitioner is not for re-validation, but for seeking

permission to utilise the licence for the equivalent period, during which he was not permitted to operate by the third respondent.

In the circumstances, even though the transferees are not entitled for re-validation as per paragraph 7.27(ii) of the Handbook of Procedures, I

am therefore inclined to give direction to second respondent to extend the period of the licence for the equivalent period, during which he was

prevented to operate and pass appropriate orders within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.