Calcutta High Court
Soubhik Exports Limited & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 May, 2008
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
WP No. 654 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SOUBHIK EXPORTS LIMITED & ANR.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Date : 16th May, 2008.
The Court : In this writ petition, the petitioners pray for a
direction to permit the Customs authorities to allow certain consignment of rice
to be exported to Bangladesh. The variety of rice sought to be exported is
described as non-Basmati rice and the petitioners claim to have lodged the bills
of export with the invoice-cum-packing list of such consignments on various
dates in the month of January 2008.
Export of non-Basmati rice, however, was prohibited under a
notification dated October 15, 2007. Thereafter, however, certain relaxation
was made permitting such export in the event the minimum export price was more
than US$425 per ton FOB, which is equivalent to Rs.17000/- per ton. This
notification was issued on December 12, 2007. Thereafter, there has been
subsequent notifications effecting variation in the minimum export price, which
has been enhanced from time to time.
The petitioners, in the present writ petition rely on a notification
issued on April 1, 2008, in which such ban has been relaxed in cases of rice
consignments certified by the Customs authorities which had been accepted for
2
export till March 6, 2008 (mid-night) in land customs station in West Bengal.
The relevant clause in this regard is set out hereinunder:
"2.2 Ban on both non-Basmati and Basmati rice will not be
applicable to exports as under:
2.2.1 Under Bilateral Trade Agreement between Government of India
and Government of Maldives (as approved vide Notification
no.42 dated 23.10.2007).
2.2.2 Consignments of rice certified by Customs Authority which have
been accepted for export till 06.03.2008 (mid-night) in Land
Customs Stations (LCS) in West Bengal as part of transitional
arrangements (as approved vide Notification no.87 dated
24.03.2008).
2.3 Above quantified relaxations would be applicable from the date
of respective Notifications as mentioned against each entry."
The case of the petitioners is that they have lodged the export
documents and on the strength of the same they must be allowed to export rice in
terms of the notification dated April 1, 2008, a copy of which has been made
annexure P-14 to the writ petition.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioners, has argued that lodging of such export documents and packing list
satisfy the requirement of above-referred clause 2.2.2 and hence the petitioners
should be allowed to export such rice in terms of the said notification. His
additional submission is that the goods in question had reached the concerned
location where the land customs station is situated. But because the customs
authorities do not have storing or parking space, they had to be kept in their
own godowns near to the land customs station.
Ms. Qureishi, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand
submits that to get the benefit of the impugned notification, the goods must 3 actually be certified to have been received before March 6, 2008 by the customs authorities and mere lodging of the documents would not be sufficient.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, prima facie I am not satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the notification of April 1, 2008. A plain reading of clause 2.2.2 suggests that the rice intended to be exported, must have been certified by the customs authorities to have been accepted for export till March 6, 2008. This does not speak of mere lodging of export documents which are often sent before the goods arrive at the land customs station.
On behalf of the petitioners, an order of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No.9686 of 2008 (L.M.J. International Limited -vs- Union of India), passed on 29th April 2008 has been relied upon. This was an interim order permitting export of the same commodity, being non- basmati rice. Under consideration in this writ petition was the impact of a notification dated November 2, 2007, prohibiting export of non-Basmati rice which carried a similar relaxation clause, though not identical in terms, in respect of rice brought for export into the godowns of Kankinada city till October 10, 2007. Satisfaction of that condition was to be certified by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, as it appears from the order of the Hon'ble Court, a copy of which was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case, the District Collector of the concerned district certified on November 30, 2007 that the writ petitioners had brought the rice in question to Kankinada city before October 10, 2007 and kept in different godowns in that city for export to Bangladesh/African countries. In this notification, the condition precedent for applying the relaxation clause was that the certificate should have been issued to the effect that the rice was brought into the godowns of Kankinada city till October 10, 2007. In the light of the certificate issued by the District Collector, an interim order was passed permitting the petitioners to export the rice in question upon the petitioners giving an 4 undertaking to the Director General of Foreign Trade that the petitioners shall compensate at a later point of time. However, there is substantial difference between the respective clauses in the two notifications. The one on the strength of which the petitioners are seeking interim order in the present writ petition specifically stipulates that the consignment of rice must have been accepted for export till March 6, 2007 in the land customs station in West Bengal.
Under the circumstances, I do not think that the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh assists the petitioners in the present case. What the petitioners are seeking in the instant writ petition, in my opinion, goes contrary to the specific stipulation of the notification. Accordingly, the prayer for interim order is rejected.
Let affidavit in opposition be filed within three weeks. Reply may be filed within two weeks thereafter. The matter will appear six weeks hence.
Parties shall act on photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.) tk