2016 (4) TMI 788 - HC - Customs

Seeking permission for clearance of goods - Import of insecticide viz., Ethephon from china - Petitioner contended that they have obtained a necessary registration certificate under Section 9(4) of the Act in the year 1991 and also in 1992 - Held that - it could be seen that the certificate dated 01.07.1991 was issued for indigenous manufacture only and not meant for import of Ethephon. When it was not issued for the purpose of import of Ethephon and it was issued only for the purpose of indigenous manufacture, the petitioner cannot rely upon this document to say that they are entitled for import of Ethephon from China. Similarly, the registration certificate dated 10.02.1992 was also issued only for indigenous manufacture. When both the documents relied upon by the petitioner pertain to the indigenous manufacture only, the same cannot be pressed into service by the petitioner for importing Ethephon from China. The petitioner s contention that it has been importing Ethephon since 1991 cannot be accepted as a ground for permitting them to import Ethephon insecticides, without following the mandatory provisions of the Act. It can only be said that the petitioner Company have managed to import Ethephon all these years. As stated above, that cannot be a ground for directing the respondents to release the consignment. In the absence of the mandatory registration, the consignment cannot be released. - Decided against the petitioner

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's eligibility to import Ethephon without a separate Source of Import registration from the 2nd respondent.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in the import, manufacture, and sale of insecticides, specifically Ethephon, applied for registration under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The petitioner obtained registration certificates in 1991 and 1992 under Section 9(4) of the Act. Additionally, the petitioner acquired a certificate of registration of Export-Import from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, claiming eligibility to freely import goods under the Export-Import Policy of the Government of India. The petitioner started importing Ethephon from China in 1997 and faced an issue in 2015 when the 1st respondent refused clearance without a separate Source of Import registration from the 2nd respondent.

The 1st respondent argued that the material must originate from the source of import with an invoice issued only by the source of import, emphasizing the need for a NOC from the 2nd respondent for consignment release. The 1st respondent contended that the petitioner misused a certificate meant for indigenous manufacturing only, not for importing Ethephon. The 2nd respondent supported this view, stating that the petitioner's certificate was insufficient for Ethephon import from China.

After reviewing the submissions and records, the court found that the petitioner's registration certificates were issued solely for indigenous manufacture, not for importing Ethephon. Despite the petitioner's history of importing Ethephon, the court emphasized the mandatory provisions of the Act, concluding that the absence of proper registration precluded the petitioner from importing Ethephon. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating it lacked merit and declined to allow the requested relief. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.