2022 (3) TMI 1505 - HC - Customs

Seeking export of 3006.110 M.T. of broken Rice - prohibited goods or not - applicability of notification dated 8.9.2022 to the broken rice procured by petitioner No.1 prior to the date of the notification - applicability of principle of promissory estoppel and doctrine of legitimaye expectation - HELD THAT - The challenge to the policy of prohibition brought into force by notification dated 08.09.2022 would stand weak before the Court. It is trite principle that the Court will not enter into the wisdom of the policy in the economic area as may be envisaged and applied by the Governmental authorities. The field of the policy makers is different than the functions of the courts. The courts, unless the policy is manifestly arbitrary or mala fide, could not interfere. This dictum is applicable stricter when it comes to the framing and/or amending the policies in the economic area, to scuttle the scope of judicial review even further. For whatever considerations the change in the export policy of broken rice has been introduced banning the export, the area is not one to be probed by the Court. Although the petitioner has sought to contend that the ground of food security in the country put forward by the respondents to justify the change in the policy, to be factually incorrect, the Court would not substitute its own consideration against that of the policy makers. There may be host of considerations which may have actuated the respondents to prohibit the export of the broken rice - The principle of promissory estoppel also cannot be applied when there has been a change in policy to contend that the changed policy should continue. The policy, the policy considerations and the change and alteration in the policy is the domain of Executive. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has a play in the facts and circumstances obtained. The measure of change of policy prohibiting the export of broken rice was a sudden measure which unsettled the regular affair of the exporters who were engaged in the exporting of the commodity in question. The prohibitory policy, therefore, was required to be preceded with certain regulatory or adjustive measures at the end of the authority in order to create minimal adverse effect on the class of exporters - When the notification dated 12.10.2022 was issued and quota of broken rice was offered for export to the exporters, notwithstanding the policy of prohibition, the petitioner was entitled to seek such benefit. The petitioner was within its right to assert its claim. He could be said to be the first amongst the equals within the class of the exporters who were to be permitted to utilise the said export quota as the petitioner had altered its position to put itself to detriment by procuring the rice under contract to export. The respondent authorities are directed to treat the petitioner at par with those other exporters whose cases are to be considered on pro-rata basis for the purpose of permitting the export of broken rice HS CODE 1006 40 00 within the quota of 3,97,267 MT stipulated under Notification dated 12.10.2022 - Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notification dated 8.9.2022 prohibiting the export of broken rice.
2. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
3. Application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
4. Procedural fairness and compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Notification Dated 8.9.2022 Prohibiting the Export of Broken Rice:
The petitioners challenged the notification dated 8.9.2022 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which prohibited the export of broken rice (HS CODE 1006 40 00) with effect from 9.9.2022. The petitioners argued that the notification was arbitrary and lacked rationale, as the variety of broken rice prohibited was not used for human consumption in India nor was it part of the Public Distribution System. The respondents contended that the notification was issued to address food security concerns due to a sudden spike in global rice prices. The court held that the challenge to the policy of prohibition was weak and emphasized that the scope of judicial review in economic policy decisions is minimal. The court stated that it would not interfere unless the policy was manifestly arbitrary or mala fide, and thus, the prayer to set aside the notification was not granted.

2. Application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The petitioners invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, arguing that they had entered into contracts and procured broken rice based on the existing policy, and the sudden change in policy caused them detriment. The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Union of India vs. Asian Food Industries and Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Kerala, which supported the application of promissory estoppel in cases where parties had altered their positions based on existing policies. However, the court also noted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked in an abstract manner without a sound foundation and that public interest considerations could override the doctrine.

3. Application of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation:
The court discussed the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which is based on fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness. The court noted that the sudden change in policy caused detriment to exporters who had acted based on the existing policy. The court referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Sri Chitra Agri Exports & Others vs. Union of India, which dealt with a similar controversy and provided protection to exporters who had acted on the existing policy. The court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation had a play in the present case and that the petitioner was entitled to relief based on this doctrine.

4. Procedural Fairness and Compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution:
The court emphasized that all arbitrariness is antithetical to Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The court noted that the respondent authorities had taken mitigating measures by allowing certain categories of consignments to be exported despite the prohibition and by issuing a subsequent notification on 12.10.2022, which provided a quota for export of broken rice. The petitioner was eligible for this quota but could not apply due to technical reasons. The court held that denying the petitioner relief based on technical reasons would be against the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the tenets of fairness enshrined in Article 14. Therefore, the court directed the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner at par with other exporters for the purpose of permitting the export of broken rice within the stipulated quota.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the legality of the notification dated 8.9.2022 prohibiting the export of broken rice but granted relief to the petitioner based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The petitioner was directed to be treated at par with other exporters for the purpose of permitting the export of broken rice within the stipulated quota, ensuring procedural fairness and compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution.

← Previous Next →