2021 (8) TMI 248 - HC - Customs

Non-fulfilment of export obligation - export of Rice - petitioner made a submission that the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents in the year 2013 itself, which was not considered - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered opinion that the export obligations declared were agreed by the petitioner. When the export license was granted pursuant to the declaration and agreement, the petitioner is bound to fulfill the same and in the event of any difficulty or other grievances, he has to approach the competent authorities and the High Court cannot dilute or grant any relief with reference to the agreed export obligations. In view of the facts and on account of efflux of time, if any other grievances exist, the petitioner has to approach the competent authorities and this Court cannot consider the claim of the petitioner, as the petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for the purpose of interference. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by 2nd respondent regarding export obligations fulfillment.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in the rice milling industry, obtained an export license in 2004. The license imposed export obligations over eight years, requiring the fulfillment of specified proportions of export obligations annually. Due to a ban from 2007 to 2011, the petitioner failed to meet these obligations. The petitioner sought relief, claiming a representation made in 2013 was ignored. The court held that once obligations are agreed upon, they must be fulfilled, and any grievances should be addressed to competent authorities. The court cannot grant relief regarding agreed export obligations.

The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to fulfill obligations and was not entitled to relief. They highlighted the revenue loss due to non-compliance and outlined options for the petitioner to absolve the default, including paying customs duty plus interest. The respondents disputed the petitioner's claim of a ban on exporting non-basmati rice, stating the ban was lifted in 2011. They accused the petitioner of misleading the court and evading duties, leading to revenue loss. The court noted the interim injunction granted in 2013, allowing the 2nd respondent to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to establish acceptable grounds for interference. The petitioner was directed to address any remaining grievances with competent authorities, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.