2011 (12) TMI 209 - HC - Customs

Petitioner sought to challenge notification issued on 31 October 2011 Notification brought amendment in Chapter 2 dealing with Meat and Edible Meat Offal. of Schedule 2 of the ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items petitioner registered with APEDA is an exporter of buffalo meat Held that - The present notification dated 31 October 2011 is clarificatory. Under the present notification both the meat processing plant and the place where-from the meat is sourced as a raw material have to be duly registered with APEDA. Whether the meat processing plant has an integrated abattoir or is only a stand alone meat processing plant does not make any difference to the applicability of the notification. In the case of both a registration is required with APEDA. In our view the Union Government was not acting ultra vires its statutory powers when it imposed these restrictions. These restrictions were as a matter of fact in existence since 2004 and the notification of 31 October 2011 is clarificatory to set the matter beyond any doubt. The fundamental right of carrying out business under Article 19 (1) (g) is subject to reasonable restraints under Article 19 (6). The notification does not fall foul of Constitutional provisions. Delhi High Court on 28 November 2011 has dismissed a petition of M/s. Marya Frozen Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. raising a similar challenge.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notification issued by Union Government regarding export of meat and meat products.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner challenged a notification issued by the Union Government, requiring exporters to certify that meat products are sourced from APEDA registered abattoirs. The Petitioner argued the notification was discriminatory and violated fundamental rights under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Respondents justified the notification to ensure quality control and hygiene standards in meat exports.

2. The Petitioner, an exporter of buffalo meat, was registered with APEDA, a statutory body for agricultural and processed food product exports. The Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 and subsequent rules mandated registration of abattoirs with APEDA to maintain export quality standards. The notification aimed to prevent illegal slaughter and ensure meat quality.

3. The High Court upheld the validity of the notification, clarifying that both meat processing plants and abattoirs must be APEDA registered for exports. The Court found the notification to be clarificatory, ensuring quality control and hygiene standards in meat exports. The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with APEDA regulations for maintaining export quality.

4. Referring to a similar judgment by the Delhi High Court, the Bombay High Court allowed the Petitioner to make representations for setting up integrated abattoirs and transitional arrangements. The Court directed the Competent Authority to expedite decisions on representations and existing meat stocks. The Petition was dismissed, emphasizing compliance with APEDA regulations for meat exports.