RESPONDENT: M/S. GODREJ SOAPS PVT. LTD AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT12/09/1986 MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) PATHAK, R.S. CITATION: 1987 AIR 175 1986 SCR (3) 771 1986 SCC (4) 260 JT 1986 408 1986 SCALE (2)409 CITATOR INFO : F 1987 SC 179 (2,4) F 1987 SC1794 (14,23) RF 1989 SC 690 (6) RF 1992 SC 696 (5,12) ACT: Import Policy 198588: List 8 of Part 2 of Appendix 6 Additional licence holdersimport of 'canalised' items Permissibility ofThis Court's order dated April 18, 1985 'Whether canalised or otherwise' Interpretation of. HEADNOTE: The respondents purchased certain quantity of palm kernel fatty acid on high seas basis from a firm which had imported it on the strength of an additional licence issued to it pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18th April 1985 in C.A. No. 1423 of 1981 Union of India v. Rajnikant Brothers. The Customs authorities refused to permit clearance of the goods on the ground that they were canalised items and could not be imported even under such additional licences. The respondents filed a petition under Art. 226 challenging the action of the Customs authorities. A Single Judge of the High Court permitted the clearance of the goods, which order was affirmed by the Division Bench. In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant Union of India it was contended that the direction given by the High Court was contrary to the directions given by this Court in Raj Prakash's and Indo Afghan Chamber's cases. On behalf of the respondents it was contended: (1) that the holders of the additional licences would be entitled to import items permissible to export houses under the additional licence category as per para 176 of the Import Policy for 137873; (2) that in any event under Item 1 of Appendix 6 (import of items under open General Licence) of the Import Policy 198588, rawmaterials, components and consumables (noniron and steel items) other than those included in the Appendices 2, 3 Part A, 5 and 8 will be permissible by the actual user 772 (industrial); and (3) that the respondents were actual users (industrial) because these were used by them for their production. Allowing the appeal of the Union of India, ^ HELD: 1. A diamond exporter can import the items he was entitled to import under the Import Policy 197879 provided they are importable also under the Import Policy ruling at the time of import. They are items which are open to import by an Export House holding an Additional Licence for sale to eligible Actual Users (Industrial). These are items which could be directly imported, for example, the items enumerated in Part 2 of List 8 of Appendix Vl of the Import Policy 198588. These are items which are not `canalised'. [776 FH] 2. `Canalised' items are those items which are ordinarily open to import only through a public sector agency. Now although generally they are importable through a public sector agency only, it is permissible for the Import Policy to provide an exception to that rule, and to declare that an importer may import a canalised item directly. [776 H; 777 A] 3. Paragraph 75(1) of the Import Policy 198588 entitles a Trading House holding an Additional Licence to directly import canalised items in Appendix V Part A to the extent laid down in that Policy. There is nothing to prevent an Import Policy from providing in the future that an Export House holding an Additional Licence can directly import certain canalised items also. In that event an Export House holding an Additional Licence will be entitled to import items open ordinarily to direct import (noncanalised items) as well as items directly importable although on the canalised list. It is in that sense that the Court could have intended to define the entitlement of a diamond exporter. He would be entitled to import items "whether canalised or not", if the Import Policy prevailing at the time of import permitted him to import items falling under each category. The Court would not know whether in the future certain canalised items could be imported directly by an Export House holding an Additional Licence. The possibility of a policy being frame