1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' K.ARNA'1'AKA AT BANGALORE ?\.
DATED THIS THE 3031 DAY OF MAY, 2008 ' ' V
BEFORE
THE HON 'BLE MBLJUSTICE L NARE%"xYA'NAj'.SW'?§M?" .V T T
Between:
1 SiLVER (31,001) ES'l'A'I'E'.S PRIVATEM-LMITED
mm K M HUNSUR ROAD,' i_3ELAVAD:_£V --«
MYSORE~5'?0 043 REP BY ITS'DiRECT(JR % _
MR 12 J c,o1:;m~10 H " . ' msf'r:'1'10NER
(BY $121.9 0 1<oTR;;:s:és:e;.L}3s K ;PAf££sP;dES\£fii2§RAN:,A ADV.)
AND: = f_ V V
1 THE A1)l)I'la'I()£\lAL" ::.z1RE:;.f1'().R"<}B:;\iI2:--!"<AL OF FOREIGH TRADE
(APPELLA'1'1;~;AUTi»a0R1'i*X)' = '
DEPARTMENT 0:2' CQVMMERCE
MINis'rRY OF CQMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
GOVERNMENT 01:' _;Nm;A, UDYOG BHAVAN
NEW DE«L,HI~"1 10 01 _ _
2 11915; Ii3':RE;CTQR--.Gi7§NERAL. OF FOREIGN TRADE
DE:éA':2';'1v1.fi:,N«*:.f me*..¢'QMMERcE
MiNiS'I'R_Y we Conmgfica AND INDUSTRY
2.....<}ov12:r2j$:MEr§'r'ojF*1;~:DiA
umou m~m;vA;~"
_ ub;L1»u--::.1() 011
away' (514: mum
_ ' zyrx1;~a1'~g_'*i'*i":,, T
TO SIMILARLY PLACED EXPORTERS INgqgkam,1'PAR'r1CL:LARLY=;i§a~vC "
RESPIJLT' OF THE SAID SIX ADVANCE 1,§C§;NCEC,_ i'Nu "1*1i§32«;'l"='Pxiif:I'S
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF' THE ME'n*ER I're.$(C.;%vE:)' H§: RE;i~I AND
QUASI-I Am) S-}::'F~AS1I)E *r1~u-;: lMPl;JGiNEI;3 Ct)Vr..£1ys§,irs11CAT1(iN%A DATED
3.4.2006 VIBE ANX~M SENT IN RE'S$I?(){§1-3135?i'()_.f}'I:fE.}4{'PEAL FILED
BY THE PE'l'I'1'i0NER 1~1ER_:f::m__I B;.§:1i'<5Ri§:f:H;.i¥§»i§E1N, AS NOT
SUS'I'AiNABLE An:'1j%%'Cozsii:a;;:Q"€i§::4?:*Li( DniE'Cr THE R1 HEREIN TO
HEAR AND C1sP<jsE'* CF 'm:E; 'FILED BY THE PETITIONER
HEREIN AS PER LAW', In; AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE} MA'F'l'ER Il\WO1.\fE'.fi .H;«;RE1N°.-
reserved for orders and today
coming 01} prfizgbmxqegaent 01' orders before the Court today,
made tlie Ibfldififiiigi
ORDER
The petitioner submits that it is a_ ‘A V’
under the Companies Act. The pefifionef * :if_
application for import of raw materia’1s:vLi1gme1y ‘es
per standard output and input. S.I'(§N-»E.6vvE§under
Product Group during the ‘d has
obtained six advance floerooes u for import: of
black pepper in terms’ Handbook of
Procedures 2oo2,»2oo’fd§~e “1ie=:vvssa§:@;–::11e«s::cee”eras granted by the
Joint Director Geixeral Bangalore. The norms
under SiON-E6′ for of pepper oleoresin there
shall} oflsiack pepper. It is submitted that
the coo d§uons under SION-E6 he finds some
oepper oil and the petitioner unit finds
in oompfimg the norms in import and export of black
dd ~.i’»£”_.s”A.«oil and it was found that some simflar units
tailing within the jurisdiction of Joint Director
of of Foreigl Trade, Cochin found ad hoc norms of
peoper of non Sri Lankan origin as approved by the Advance
“\
4
Licensing Committee with the import of 8.45 kgs. of black
pepper of non Sri Lanka origin and he has furnished the
advance licences Committee Meeting No.25/O4
23/3/2003. He also 1’uI’n;ished the name of said
Synthetic Industrial Chemicais Ltd., Kerala ,
No. 10100092-333 dated 7/6/2002 and
produced as Annexure-A, The petitioner
that adhoc licence in para 4.7 of Han’ d””boo3gV of had
also been issued to other of Karala
including the Flavours 6; Extracts
Limited. Copy fit Annexure-B.
2. in or:de.r_ benefit on par with the
H the petitioner has made
/2005 (Annexures-CI to G6) with
respondent i.e., Director General
..’1’1jade; “New Delhi seeking for ixlsuuctmg the Joint
. e, of Foreign Trade, Bangalore to amend the ad
per the norms applicable to non Sri Lankan origin
u:i.e., 8.45 icgs. to be allowed for import as again’ st 1 k.g. of
<
5
black pepper oieroesin oil. The said representations , V.
have been considered and in pursuance to the same, ‘
endorsement as per Annexure-D dated 5/ 2C05″–«eWherein
petitioner was d1rected’ to approach the o:fi?1ce.s_oI’ ‘V
Generai of Foreign Trade, Bangalore.
the said endorsement, the
representations as per 15/9/2005
addressed to the Joint In
all these mpmsenmtiongéfl; made common
request to waeswderctended to the other
similar units situstet:1″at “petitioner has made other
similar repmsentstions I/2005 as per Annexure~F’
addressed”to of Foreign Trade at New Delhi
and one on 6/12/2005 to the Secretary,
of and Industries, Government of India.
” _ as Annexure~Cr. By refernng’ the
V. ” ‘ by the petitioner, the third respondent by
20/12/2005 rejected the request of the
stating that it is not possible to accede to the request
of the petitioner for enhancement of quantity of import items.
T
3. Against the said order, the petitioner
appeal to the Additional Secretary, Ministry’ it
4/2/2006 as per Annexure~J under Sect.iorL_9:(5)z Secfiofi
of Foreign Trade (Development
mrsuant. to the appeal been
issued by the Relaxation discussion
was heid in the on 8/2/2006,
petitioner’s case the extension in
Export Obligation months. The said six
months will of endorsement made on
the lieeneest die one more endorsement was
ivlndia, the third respondent dated
appeal does not lie with the Appellate
(v,’Vt’:o:énVoi1.9xii.tt:-3e end was advised to approach the Director
Trade or Grievance Committee for redressal of
L’ “is The petitioner has also produced one more
‘Vendorsenient-dated 19/ 4/ 2006 (Atmexure-N) passed by the
Trade Development Oflioer for Director General of
‘V
7
Foreigl Trade wherein the wee of the petitioner has been
rejected. Hence the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
4. On behalf of the respondents, learned counsel has filed
statement of objections contending that the prayer
petitioner is liable to be rejected on the gonad that
has obtained licence under’ SIGN-E6 V
Declaration Scheme (SIDS), like the two *-of
by the petitioner. The licence waslllseued lion petifioner
Comfiafly With 518 months from the
date of issue of under SIGN-1336 have
been Blaced oi. » of (HEP) Volume 11
oil/oleroeein as stipulated
uyoder and conditions in SlON’~»E6 is not
comreruble irxto l’.)eclaration Scheme. The terms and
_ 11nder”§5’e11′-Declaration Scheme are entirely diflerent
~ – . Vnoeprovision for the said conversion. It is submitted
‘petitioner obtained six advanced licences in the earlier
he has been doing business in the some norms and
he has not noticed any shortfall in doing business and he has
‘V
made eifort to make representations to various authority “.4 V
looking at reiaxation provided to the other two units H or ‘ H
and intention of the petitioner is only to get «meme of L.
materials for import under duty exemption ”
licences for which the petitioner is not efifitied. . ‘
5. I have heard the Ieamettttitcouneei. fori’:’tt:1e. parties and
perused the records.
6. The learned contended that similar benefit situated at Kerala
referred to above n 3 benefit is arbitrary and
opposed to Artieie of India. The second
contentionv of iéetitioner the appeal filed by him was
not he prays for allowing the writ
as prayed ,__f<)1'-..u On the other hand, learned counsel for
" _ trite' suiimits that prayer of the petitioner to extend
4; A4 , "I with the other two units is not tenable for the
.:that"tVthe two units have been permitted under Self
Scheme as provided in para 4.7 of Handbook of
Procedures (HEP) anti the same was revived by the norms
I"
9
Committee after scrutinizing their appiieations and after
opinion from the concerned authorities. The — ”
prayed for change of quantum fixed in arid V
pepper and its oil on par with those
impemmissible.
7. It is the case of the given to
the units stated above have import
quantity of black of pepper oil,
but the that under what
scheme those ur;its–. of more pepper for
exporting one unit oi’._’_oil, has obtained licences
under Hence the petitioner
is not as that of the two units referred to
to g_ placed persons are treated
so as to Article 14 ofathe Constitution. The
gegortdvoistttboniaeion of the petitioner is that the appeal preferred
appellate authority has been rejected on the ground
does not lie to the appellate oommittee. It has been
cotizintunicated by the letter dated 314/ 2006 that what is
‘K
10
impugned in the appeal is not a statutory order passed under
any provisions so as to invoke appeal remedy under Section 9(5)
r/w Section 15 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations)
Act 1982. It is only a formal communication and it is
statutory order. The petitioner was advised to ~
ofiice of DGF1′ or the Grievance ()oIx1111ittee..i7or
grievances. Therefore, the second 7f
petitioner also cannot be accepted.
8. In View of the above ,.-facts the
petitioner has that his ciaiza for change
of export and by the authorities is
opposecito Vi4__ofV’tiia ovcozistitutzion tor the reason that the
two i»¢1e::¢ao:o and the petitioner are not under the
situated at Kerala namely, M/s.
V Chemicals Ltd., and Kancor Flavours as
~ :iI_’;s:<Ai:1V.Vi,i " are under the Self Declaration Scheme Whereas
has obtained licences under SION~E6. Obtaining
§;iI1Ci6I' one particular scheme and seeking benefit of a
ll
differem scheme on the ground of arbitrariness cannot ._ be
upheld and considered.
9. If the petitioner can establish that .
the two units referred to above have also… ” ‘” V
licence and got the benefit of changed expert a I_’1d”i.f
then it is open for the petitioner to the $’a.n;;e~
the appropriate autilority in acco:’danee—-v;iit31’iaw. ‘
With these observations, uiis rejected.
aka?’