The appellant claimed clearance of the goods against the additional licence on the ground that the cloves were companyered under Item 169 of Appendix 6, List 8, Part I of the Import and Export Policy being Drugs Drug intermediate number elsewhere specified.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.6.1991 of the Bombay High Court in W.P.N. 1914 of 1991.
The appellant opened a letter of credit dated 6.5.1991 in favour of the foreign supplier.
On arrival of the goods at Bombay Port, e appellant filed Bill of Entry for the clearance of the goods for home companysumption on 30th May, 1991.
The appellant in the above circumstances filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay seeking a mandamus against the respondent to clear the goods against the Bill of Entry filed by the appellant.
3412179 dated 29th November, 1990 for Rs.
T.S. Tulsi, Addl.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
916 of 1992.
On receipt of the letter of credit the foreign supplier shipped the above mentioned goods in favour of the appellant.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant obtained by transfer an Import Lincence No.
The Department relied on Para 167 which dealt with the import of spices and took the stand that the cloves companyld be imported only against specific licence relating to cloves.
Solicitor General, A. Subba Rao, P. Parmeswaran and A.D.N. Rao for the Respondents.
16,10,700 for the import of admissible Items as per Para 220 2 3 4 6 of the Import Policy 1990 93 Vol.
The short companytroversy raised in the present case is whether the cloves imported by the appellant fall within Item 169 in List 8 of appendix 6 or fall within Paragraph 167 of Chapter XIII of the Import and Export Policy April 1990 March 1993.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted.
I. After acquisition of the aforesaid additional licence, the appellant placed an order for the supply of about 200 bags of Madagascar cloves No.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 18.6.1991.
1 quality to a firm of Singapore.
Harish N. Salve, Rajiv K. Garg and N.D. Garg for the Appellant.
