2020 (11) TMI 984 - HC - Customs

Import of Cashew Nuts - Validity of fumigation certificate as well as the phytosanitary certificate - Prohibited or restricted item - Chapter 6 of the Plant quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003 - HELD THAT - The petitioner would submit that in accordance with the said Article, the petitioner has applied for one time relaxation for the production of phytosanitary certificate before the second respondent on 08.09.2020. He would also submit that one time relaxation will have to be granted by the second respondent in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Plant quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003 - This Court finds force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and neither the petitioner nor the respondents will be prejudiced if the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is granted by this Court. This Court directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application filed under Article 14 of the Plant quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003, seeking for one time relaxation for the production of phytosanitary certificate in respect of the imported 133.158 MTs of raw cashew nuts, under bill of entry filed with Tuticorin Customs and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order for goods clearance based on rejected phytosanitary certificate.

Analysis:
The petitioner imported raw cashew nuts with a bill of entry dated 13.06.2020, but the phytosanitary certificate was rejected as fake by the second respondent. The petitioner appealed, but the first respondent upheld the rejection. The petitioner argued that the certificates were genuine and requested a one-time relaxation for production. The court referred to Article 14 of the Plant quarantine Order, allowing relaxation in certain cases. The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application for relaxation within six weeks. If rejected, the petitioner can challenge the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner contended that the phytosanitary and fumigation certificates were genuine, urging the second respondent to grant a one-time relaxation under Article 14 of the Plant quarantine Order. The court agreed that the petitioner's application for relaxation should be considered promptly. The court emphasized the importance of complying with mandatory requirements to avoid setting a wrong precedent and to protect flora and fauna.

The court highlighted the provision in Article 14 of the Plant quarantine Order, allowing for relaxation of conditions in certain cases in the public interest. The court directed the second respondent to review the petitioner's application for relaxation within a specified timeframe. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the first respondent's order if the application for relaxation was rejected. The judgment focused on ensuring compliance with regulations while providing an opportunity for the petitioner to address the rejection of the phytosanitary certificate.