2019 (12) TMI 1300 - HC - Customs

Allocation of Calcined Pet Coke for Aluminium Industry and Raw Pet Coke (RPC) for CPC manufacturing - allocation based on installed capacity - HELD THAT - A perusal of the Impugned Minutes of Meeting dated 22.04.2019 of the respondent no. 1, also clearly shows that the installed capacity as on 09.10.2018 has to be considered by the respondent no. 1 for making allocation of RPC. The Minutes, however, do not show the consideration of documents that have been referred to hereinabove by the leaned senior counsel for the petitioners, by the respondent no. 1 while making such allocation. The respondent no. 1 is directed to consider the petition as a representation of the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereon, within a period of four weeks from today. While taking such decision, the respondent no. 1 shall also grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Allocation of Calcined Pet Coke and Raw Pet Coke based on installed capacity

Analysis:
1. The petitioners raised a grievance regarding the allocation of Calcined Pet Coke for the Aluminium Industry and Raw Pet Coke (RPC) for CPC manufacturing. They argued that the respondent considered their installed capacity as 2,00,000 MT only, despite evidence showing an increase to 330,000 MT before a previous order by the Supreme Court limiting import to 1.4 million MT per year.

2. The petitioners' senior counsel presented various documents supporting the increased capacity claim, such as Consortium of Banks meeting minutes, an engineer's report, and a site inspection report. They also highlighted that a Supreme Court order rejected their application for an increase in the import limit of RPC beyond 1.4 million MT, focusing solely on the limit without considering the appeal for allocation based on the pre-existing installed capacity.

3. The Supreme Court's rejection of the petitioners' application for an increased import limit emphasized the 1.4 million MT cap without addressing the capacity-based allocation request. The petitioners argued that the court did not evaluate their appeal for allocation based on the capacity as of 09.10.2018.

4. Following the filing of the present petition, the petitioners sought permission from the Supreme Court to challenge the allocation meeting's minutes, but the court disposed of the application without further clarification, reiterating the 1.4 million MT import limit.

5. The petitioners clarified that they were not seeking an increase in the overall RPC quantity to be imported but emphasized that allocation should be based on the plant's installed capacity as of 09.10.2018, as they believed the previous Supreme Court order did not address this aspect.

6. The High Court considered the submissions from both parties and noted that the respondent should consider the installed capacity as of 09.10.2018 for the allocation of RPC. However, it observed that the meeting minutes did not reflect the consideration of the documents presented by the petitioners' counsel during the allocation process.

7. Consequently, the High Court directed the respondent to treat the petition as a representation and issue a speaking order within four weeks, considering the installed capacity and granting the petitioners an opportunity for a hearing. The petitioners were also given the right to challenge the decision if aggrieved, emphasizing that the court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claims.

8. The petition was disposed of with the above directions, ensuring a fair consideration of the installed capacity for allocation purposes while maintaining the petitioners' right to challenge any unfavorable decision in accordance with the law.