mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7185 OF 2009 Messrs Global Exim ..Petitioner Vs. The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. P.D.S. Legal for the Petitioner Mr. R. Ashokan with Mr. M.I. Sethna, Senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are holders of 30 Duty Free Import Authorizations. They have earlier submitted one such authorisation for amendment of license. That was done by endorsement dated 23rd July, 2009. It was specifically for the purpose of import of dry fruits and packing material. The license stood in favour of Parle Products Private Limited. 3. The petitioners hold another twelve similar licenses, which they have purchased in the market from Parle Products Private Limited. On 6th June, 2009 they applied to DGFT for amendment of the said licences to include dry fruits and packing materials. Till date they have not received any communication from the respondents. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners sought to take us through the policy, to point out that the said items can be imported even if not used in the exported material considering the licences were issued between 16th January, 2006 and 7th January, 2009. 5. On behalf of the respondents, learned Counsel seeks to contend that the goods in respect of which amendment is sought can only be used by actual exporters. 6. We do not propose to enter into the controversy today considering that the material is still before the respondents. 7. In the light of that, in our opinion, the ends of justice will be met if the respondents are directed within eight weeks from today to take a decision on the licences submitted by the petitioners to the respondents for amendment. All other questions raised in this petition are left open for consideration in the event the petitioners are still aggrieved by any adverse orders passed by the respondents. 8. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)