2011 (6) TMI 611 - HC - Customs

Actual User Condition - Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) scheme - appellant complains that as a consequence of the notification impugned in the writ petition, the appellant and other farmers, small or medium, would be prejudicially affected as Maize could now be imported without restricting such import for the purposes of Actual Use of the importer; and this would bring down the price of the Maize in Country and thereby render the substantive occupation of the appellant and other farmers unviable economically Held that - no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 4th respondent be directed to consider and dispose of the representation before issuing fresh trade licences on the basis of the impugned notification dated 18-5-2011 whereby and whereunder Actual User Condition is eschewed from the raft of conditions incorporated in a licence granted under TRQ. the 4th respondent, a public authority, will consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26-5-2011, if made as asserted, expeditiously

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notification on Actual User Condition under Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) scheme.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged a notification published in the Gazette, objecting to the exclusion of the "Actual User Condition" under the Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) scheme. The appellant, a large-scale cultivator of Maize, argued that the notification allowing Maize import without restrictions on actual use would adversely affect local farmers economically. The appellant contended that the notification was unauthorized as it deviated from the conditions specified in the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the Handbook of Procedures allows for the inclusion of an "Actual User Condition" in licenses, indicating a discretionary power to impose or waive such conditions. The Court noted that policy decisions are primarily within the domain of the legislature or the Executive, and interference by the judiciary is limited unless there is a clear violation of law or constitutional limits.

The Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge to deny interim relief, agreeing that the policy decision reflected in the notification was within the discretion of the competent authority. The Court emphasized that matters of policy fall under the purview of the legislature or the Executive, and judicial intervention is unwarranted unless there is a clear legal or constitutional infringement. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge's decision.

The appellant requested the Court to direct the concerned authority to consider a representation submitted by the appellant before issuing trade licenses based on the impugned notification. The Court acknowledged the appellant's submission but declined to interfere with the authority's discretion in granting or renewing licenses. The Court stated that impeding the authority's operational efficacy without legal basis would not be appropriate, emphasizing the importance of allowing the authority to exercise its discretion within the bounds of the law.