Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The challenge in this writ petition is to the public notice dated 27.01.2016 issued by the fourth respondent wherein and by which the fourth respondent has imposed certain conditions while inviting applications for registration of sales contract for import of poppy seeds from China into India.

2. Brief facts which are essential for determination of the disputes involved in this writ petition are as under:-

(i) The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and holds TIN NO. 33600662611 and CST No. 1132522. The petitioner is also in possession of Import Export Code (IEC) issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade bearing IEC No. 0412024047 for the purpose of import of spices, poppy seeds and other items. According to the petitioner, during the course of their business, they have intended to import poppy seeds from China, which according to them is permitted in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy in force from time to time. The condition prescribed in this regard is that the import contract for specified quantities has to be submitted to the fourth respondent, who would register the contract pursuant to which imports will be permitted in respect of the quantity mentioned in the contract.

25. As regards the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 relating to the locus standi of the petitioner to file this writ petition, it is seen from the records that the petitioner company has obtained Certificate of Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) issued by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade on 28.09.2012 for the purpose of commencing import of spices, poppy seeds and other items. It is clearly stated in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner, during the course of his business, sought to import poppy seeds from China. However, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner could not submit the necessary application for registration of the import contract in view of the multiple conditions imposed by the fourth respondent in the impugned public notice. In such view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner has a genuine grievance to be ventilated as against the impugned public notice issued by the fourth respondent inasmuch as it prohibits and restricts him to carry on his import business. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioner has a right to question the impugned public notice issued by the fourth respondent especially when it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner as enshrined under Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of The Constitution of India to carry on his legitimate business of import of poppy seeds and other goods.