WORLD TRADE CORPORATION vs EXPORT PROMOTION BUREAU and others
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court dated 22-10-1988, which had upheld conditions imposed by the Export Promotion Bureau regarding the petitioner's export quota entitlements. The petitioner argued that the previous order was based on incorrect factual assumptions regarding alleged unauthorized shipments made in 1984. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the ban imposed on 19-8-1984 did not become effective until 20-11-1984, meaning their shipments during that interim period were lawful and did not require regularization or penalties. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's acceptance of the Bureau's conditions and the alleged factual errors in the previous judgment warranted a review. The Court held that the review petition must be dismissed, affirming that the mere existence of a plausible alternative view does not constitute valid grounds for review when the Court has already adopted one of two possible interpretations. Furthermore, the Court noted that the specific argument regarding the effective date of the ban had not been raised in previous proceedings, leaving the petitioner to pursue that argument in appropriate forums in accordance with the law.
- Does the existence of an equally plausible alternative view constitute sufficient grounds for a review of a judgment?
- Can a party raise a new factual argument in a review petition that was not agitated before the High Court or the Supreme Court in the original proceedings?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This is a petition seeking review of this Court's order, dated 22-10-1988.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the impugned order is based on certain assumptions of fact which are not correct. According to him, the correct facts are that in the year 1984 according to the policy in force, as amended on 16-2-1984, exports of fabric of the categories in question were freely allowed on first come first serve basis without any prior quota allocation and the petitioners shipped 44,59,153 square yards in the said year. The petitioners' entitlement for the year 1985 accordingly was to be 40, 57, 710 based on previous year's actual export of 44,59,153.
3. But owing to the so-called ban imposed by the public notice, dated 19th August, 1984, the petitioners were not allowed further shipments after they had shipped 23,14,760 square yards on the ground that they had shipped 14 lacs square yards in the year 1984 after exports were banned on 19-8-1984 even though the said ban was not to be given effect to for three months under the Policy. There was, therefore, in fact no overshipment or unauthorised shipment in the year 1984.
4. Accordingly, by shipping 14 lacs square yards between 21-8-1984 and 20-11-1984 (in the year 1984), according to Mr. Fakharuddin G.Ibrahim, the petitioners had not committed any irregularity which might have required regularisation in so far as the ban imposed on 19-8-1984 did not come into effect until 20-11-1984.
5. ' However, by the impugned letter, dated 15-9-1985, not only 10 per cent penalty was imposed, but it was further ordered that from the petitioners' entitlement for the year 1986, 13 lacs square yards will be deducted on account of the unauthorised shipments made in 1984. This too was not possible as under the policy in force there was no provision for such a deduction. At its worst, respondent No,1 could have ignored the allegedly excess shipment of 14 lacs square yards in 1984 in arriving at the petitioners' entitlement for the year 1985.
6. ' In the impugned order this Court found that the conditions, imposed in the letter of 15th September, 1985, were accepted by the petitioners in their letter No,WTC/FSD/786/84-85, dated September 16, 1985 and letter No,WTC/EPB/86, dated February 18, 1986. But Mr. Fakhruddin G.Ibrahim, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that if the first mentioned letter, dated September 16, 1985 is read with the letter No,WTC/EPB/85 of the petitioners, which is also, dated September 16, 1985, the inference drawn by this Court was not possible. However, it is not denied that the contents of the first mentioned letter (No,WTC/FSD/786/84-85) do appear to indicate that the conditions imposed by the Export Promotion Bureau in their letter, dated 15th September, 1985, were being accepted and were being complied with.
7. The law is well-settled that in cases where two views are possible and the Court accepts one view the mere fact that the other view is equally plausible, the said circumstance does not furnish a ground for review.
8. ' But, according to Mr.Fakharuddin G.Ebrahim, the assumption made by the authorities that the petitioners had committed an irregularity in shipping 14 lacs square yards after the exports were banned by the Public Notice, dated 19th August, 1984, is incorrect. The correct position is that no such irregularity was committed. The ban imposed on 19-8-1984 was to come into effect only after 3 months and all the shipments of the petitioners had already been made by 20-11-1984 i.e, before the date the ban became effective.
9. This aspect of the case does not appear to have been agitated earlier, either before the High Court or in this Court. The petitioners can agitate this B aspect, if it is still possible to do so before any forum, in accordance with law.
10. This petition, with these observations, stands dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDULLAH vs MOHABBAT and others 1991 CLC 1209