Bombay High Court
Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Commerce And ... on 4 March, 2020
Author: Ravi K. Deshpande
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
0403cp27.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Contempt Petition No.27 of 2020
Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt., Office at Nagpur, through its
Director Rajesh Kumar Chhada
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi, and others
Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's
orders
and Registrar's order
Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Shri Shyam Dewani, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, Assistant Solicitor General of India
for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Amit B. Borkar, JJ.
Date : 4th March, 2020
1. The respondent No.3- Shri Dileeraj C. Dabhole, Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade/Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade, and the respondent No.4- Shri Jaykaran Singh, Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Nagpur, who were the respondents in Writ Petition No.8268 of 2017 decided on 29-3-2019, and Writ Petition No.3412 of 2019 decided on 9-1-2020, are personally present before us.
2. In Writ Petition No.8268 of 2017, we have decided the question of entitlement of the petitioner to a Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA), a Scheme formulated under a Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) in terms of Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 for the period from 1-4-2015 to 31-3-2020. The question was whether the petitioner can be allowed to import maize popcorn under the the DFIA licence for export of starch powder under SION Entry No.E75, ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2020 10:05:04 ::: 2 0403cp27.2020.odt when the imported popcorn was not used to manufacture the export product, viz. maize starch powder. We have categorically recorded the finding that DFIA is transferable and there is no actual user condition so as to restrict the right of the petitioner to import maize.
3. In spite of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the petitioner could not get the relief in terms of it and hence another Writ Petition No.3412 of 2019 was required to be filed, in which several orders were passed, and ultimately a pursis was filed by the respondents in the said writ petition, stating as under :
"The counsel for the Respondents respectfully submits that he has received a communication from the Additional DGFT, Regional Office, Nagpur stating that he is directing his subordinate officers to issue DFIAs to the Petitioner in compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.8268/2017 and as per the provisions of prevalent policy which was in force on the date of export i.e. between 18.9.2017 to 21.03.2018 i.e. on production of self certified copy of shipping bill.
Hence, this pursis."
We disposed of the writ petition holding that the reliefs claimed in the petition do not survive in view of the aforesaid pursis and, therefore, quashed and set aside the show cause notice dated 25-10-2018 holding that it is contrary to the decision of this Court. We also saddled the costs of Rs.25,000/- upon the respondents.
4. Now in this contempt petition, the complaint is that again two things are projected by the respondents to deny the benefits ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2020 10:05:04 ::: 3 0403cp27.2020.odt of the judgment - (i) that the DFIA is non-transferable, and
(ii) that actual user condition has to be complied with. In the earlier round of litigation, we asked the respondents as to whether they intend to challenge the judgment delivered by this Court by approaching the Apex Court. Time was taken from this Court and we also granted it to explore the possibility of respondents approaching the Apex Court against the decision of this Court. Ultimately, the respondents decided to accept the judgment delivered by this Court and accordingly Writ Petition No.3412 of 2019 was disposed of. In this background, again we are told that a permission is sought from the higher authorities for implementing the decision of this Court. We put a specific question to the respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are personally present before us, to state as to whether they are required to obtain the consent of the higher authorities for implementation of the order passed by this Court, particularly when they are party-respondents in the writ petition. The specific answer is that they are not required to obtain such consent and the order has to be implemented. We have taken serious note of the stand taken by the respondents before us and we find that there is no option for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 but to permit import of maize popcorn variety without insisting upon actual user and non-transferability condition with correct code number.
5. We grant the respondent Nos.3 and 4 one day's time to think over this; failing which, we shall be constrained to put them under detention till the order passed by this Court is complied with.
6. Put up this matter tomorrow, i.e. 5-3-2020.
(Amit B. Borkar, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.)
Lanjewar, PS
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2020 10:05:04 :::