2020 (5) TMI 430 - HC - Customs

Issuance of license and allocation of quota qua Calcined Pet Coke - Request for allocation of CPC - limitation on quantum of CPC - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of M.C. MEHTA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2018 (11) TMI 1352 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that Calcined Pet Coke (CPC) (domestic as well as imported) can be used as raw-material for anode making in the Aluminium industry with the revised BIS specifications, the imported raw-material cannot exceed 0.5 MT per annum in total. Nothing survives in the captioned writ petition and the interlocutory application, and the same can, thus, be disposed of - The matter is, however, directed to be listed for compliance, at the request of counsel for parties, on 04.06.2020.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Import quota of Calcined Pet Coke (CPC) utilization during lockdown.
2. Consideration of emergent requirement of CPC for smelters' operations.
3. Delay in clearance of CPC affecting smelter plants' operability.
4. Allocation of CPC by DGFT and adjustment in the current year's quota.
5. Directions for consideration of CPC allocation request and consignment clearance.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner could not fully utilize the import quota of Calcined Pet Coke (CPC) due to lockdown restrictions. The petitioner's consignment of CPC imported and lying at Kakinada Port was not cleared, impacting smelter operations. The court acknowledged the environmental concerns related to CPC import quotas fixed annually and permitted the petitioner to keep smelters in operation during the lockdown to avoid significant losses and costs associated with restarting operations. The court suggested allowing the petitioner to import the allocated quota on an ad-hoc basis, subject to adjustment in the current year's quota to comply with the Supreme Court's directives.

2. The respondent, represented by DGFT, considered multiple similar cases for the issuance of licenses and allocation of CPC quotas. DGFT initiated the process to address these cases, including the petitioner's, from the date of the court order. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the criticality of timely clearance of CPC consignments at Kakinada and Gangavaram Ports to prevent smelter plants from becoming non-operable. The petitioner, a significant aluminum producer, highlighted the limited CPC availability at plants in Orissa and Chhattisgarh, stressing the urgency of the situation.

3. Considering the circumstances and limitations on CPC allocation set by the respondent following Supreme Court guidelines, the court issued specific directions. The DGFT was instructed to consider the petitioner's CPC allocation request promptly. If unable to do so by the specified deadline, DGFT must issue necessary orders for consignment clearance at the mentioned ports for the petitioner's plant use. Any adjustments required in CPC quantities allocated to the petitioners in the upcoming financial year should be made accordingly. The court directed DGFT to treat the petition as an application for CPC allocation and communicate its decisions electronically to avoid delays.

4. Following the issuance of directions, both parties agreed that nothing further remained in the writ petition and interlocutory application, leading to their disposal. The petitioner opted not to press the remaining prayers related to the action. The court scheduled a compliance listing for the matter on a later date as requested by the parties' counsel to ensure adherence to the directives provided in the judgment.