Name of the Court
Supreme Court of India
All Citations of the Case
AIR 1995 SC 370 : (1996) 53 ECC 107 : (1995) 75 ELT 32 : (1995) 1 JT 219 : (1994) 4 SCALE 840 : (1995) 1 SCC 345 : (1994) 5 SCR 278 Supp
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=284957
Facts of the Case
The appellants entered into a contract on 1.8.1993 for the import of fatty acids. An irrevocable letter of credit was opened on 3.10.1983. However, on 11.11.1994, a public notice amended the Import & Export Policy making fatty acids a canalised item, importable only via the State Trading Corporation. The shipment arrived on 9.2.1984, but did not qualify under the exception for goods already shipped before the amendment. The appellants challenged the policy change under promissory estoppel, which was dismissed by both High Court and Supreme Court.
Law Points Raised
1. Applicability of doctrine of promissory estoppel to import policy amendments.
2. Retrospective nature of import restrictions under public notices.
3. Reasonableness of classification between shipments already made and pending.
4. Power of the Central Government to amend import policies under statutory authority.
5. Validity of exclusion based on shipment not being made before cut-off date.
Acts/Provisions/Articles Referred
• Customs Act, 1962 — Section 25
• Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 — Section 3
• Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 19
Judgements Referred
• Kanishka Trading v. Union of India (1994)
• D. Navinachandra & Co. v. Union of India (1987)
• Universal Imports Agency v. Chief Controller of Imports (1991)
• Kaptan's Enterprises v. Union of India, AIR 1986 Delhi 221
Obiter Dicta
Public interest must override individual commercial expectations. Exception based on shipment already made is valid and reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi
The entitlement to import canalised goods is governed by the import policy in effect at the time of import. The amended policy validly restricted imports not already shipped prior to the amendment, and public interest justifies such retrospective restrictions.
Final Ruling
The appeal was dismissed with ₹10,000 cost in each case. The Supreme Court upheld the public notice restricting fatty acid imports post amendment. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was deemed inapplicable.