2021 (4) TMI 695 - HC - Customs

Prohibition on import of raw material - Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) - Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) into a Special Economic Zone - enhancement of import limit of RPC and CPC - manufacture, blending and re-export without the said goods being cleared for domestic usage in India under the SEZ Act - HELD THAT - Though in the order dated 28.01.2019, the Hon ble Supreme Court referred to the order dated 09.10.2018 2018 (11) TMI 1352 - SUPREME COURT and observed that outer limit for import of raw pet coke cannot exceed 1.4 M.T. per annum, outer limit of 0.5 M.T. per annum for import of CPC, as fixed by the order dated 09.10.2018, was not mentioned. But the same will make no difference - As the Hon ble Supreme Court had rejected I.A.No.1847 of 2019, wherein prayer for enhancement of import limit of RPC and CPC was made, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted and therefore, submission made that the representations were rejected without any application of mind pales into insignificance. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions related to import of raw material into a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) for manufacturing, blending, and re-export.
2. Rejection of representations for import permissions of Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) and Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) by the respondents.
3. Legal implications of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous cases regarding import limits of raw pet coke.
4. Contention regarding the rejection of representations without proper consideration and application of mind by the authorities.
5. Whether the dismissal of certain applications by the Hon'ble Supreme Court bars the High Court from entertaining the present petitions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought writs mandating permission to import raw material, CPC, and RPC into SEZ for manufacturing and re-export without domestic clearance. The court examined the representations and orders, emphasizing the need for compliance with environmental laws and SEZ regulations for import purposes.

2. The rejection of representations by the respondents was challenged, citing arbitrariness and illegality. The court noted the specific requests for permissions to import CPC under the Foreign Trade Policy for blending and re-export, urging the authorities to consider the representations in a time-bound manner.

3. Referring to previous Supreme Court orders limiting the import of raw pet coke, the petitioner sought an increase in import limits through applications. The court highlighted the limitations set by the Supreme Court and dismissed the prayers for enhancement, emphasizing compliance with the specified import quotas.

4. The petitioner contended that the rejections lacked proper consideration and application of mind. However, the court found the rejection justified based on the existing import limits and the Supreme Court's clear directives, thereby diminishing the significance of the contention.

5. Despite the dismissal of certain applications by the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued for the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. The court, however, upheld the dismissal, stating that the prayers for enhancement were previously rejected, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions without costs.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, focusing on the legal interpretations, previous court orders, contentions raised by the parties, and the final decision of the High Court.