2021 (6) TMI 265 - HC - Customs

Import of raw cashew nuts - objections on the phytosanitary certificate - Permission for re-export of goods - name of the plant product was spelt correctly as cashew dry nuts the botanical name was wrongly written as zingiber officinale instead of anacardium occidentale - Article 3(1) of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003 - HELD THAT - The petitioner is in the business of import of raw cashew nuts and re-export the same. In one of the consignments of bill of entry dated 13.06.2020, the phytosanitary certificate produced by the petitioner was not accepted by the first respondent on certain doubts on the certificate. The petitioner has filed an appeal as against the order of deportation and this Court, taking into consideration of the available provisions under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003, disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner to consider his case in the light of Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003. Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003, enables one time relaxation, in certain cases, in the absence of phytosanitary certificate. It is the case of the petitioner that while announcements were reported by the Government without fumigation certificate as that of this case, relaxation were provided under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003. Therefore, the petitioner has also offered for fumigation of the goods through an accredited treatment provider - Though the consignment has reached, the same has not been cleared so far. Even if it is deported, it will not be useful to any one. Instead, the first respondent ought to have permitted the petitioner for fumigation through an accredited treatment provider in India by providing one time relaxation to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent to fumigate the goods through an accredited treatment provider, by providing one time relaxation to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of phytosanitary certificate for imported cashew nuts.
2. Appeal against deportation order and delay in appellate authority's decision.
3. Rejection of relaxation request under Article 14 of Plant Quarantine Order, 2003.

Issue 1: Rejection of Phytosanitary Certificate
The petitioner, engaged in importing cashew nuts, faced objections on the phytosanitary certificate issued for a consignment due to errors in botanical name and vessel details. Despite submitting revised certificates, the first respondent rejected them as fake, leading to a deportation order. The petitioner appealed, seeking early disposal, but faced delays. The Court directed the second respondent to consider the relaxation request under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine Order, 2003, and challenge the rejection if needed.

Issue 2: Appeal Against Deportation Order
The petitioner's appeal against the deportation order was dismissed by the appellate authority, citing serious environmental concerns due to non-compliance with phytosanitary requirements. Subsequent writ petitions led to directions for the second respondent to consider the relaxation request. However, the first respondent rejected the request, fearing wrong precedent and environmental risks. The petitioner argued for relaxation under Article 14, emphasizing the perishable nature of the goods and willingness to meet fumigation requirements.

Issue 3: Rejection of Relaxation Request
The first respondent rejected the relaxation request under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine Order, 2003, despite past relaxations by the Government for similar cases. The petitioner offered fumigation through an accredited provider and bore expenses, but the request was denied, citing potential environmental risks and setting a wrong precedent. The Court, after considering submissions, allowed the writ petition, setting aside the rejection and remitting the matter for fumigation within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the need for one-time relaxation under Article 14.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of rejection of the phytosanitary certificate, the appeal against the deportation order, and the rejection of the relaxation request, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment and the legal arguments presented by the parties involved.