9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of "best year's exports" for allocation of export quota. 2. Allegation of arbitrary allocation of export quota. 3. Violation of fundamental rights under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner, an established exporter of peacock tail feathers, contested the allocation of export quota for the year 1986-87 based on the interpretation of "best year's exports." The petitioner claimed that his best year's export was in 1985-86, exporting 1,60,180 pieces of peacock tail feathers, entitling him to quota allocation for 1986-87 based on that year. However, the respondents allocated quota based on the export during 1981-82, which the petitioner deemed arbitrary, illegal, and violative of his fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. 2. The respondents argued that the criteria for determining "best year's exports" were laid down in Export Instruction No. 24/68, dated 25th April 1968, which specified the best exports made in any of the three basic years ending September 1967. According to these guidelines, the petitioner's best year's exports were determined to be 87,600 pieces, and quota allocation was consistently based on this criterion, including for the year 1986-87. 3. The petitioner contended that the term "best year's exports" should be interpreted as exports made in the three years preceding the year ending September 1967. However, the Court found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that Export Instruction No. 24/68, still in force, clearly outlined the basis for determining best year's exports as exports made in any one of the three basic years ending September 1967. The Court noted that there was no evidence to suggest the withdrawal of this criteria. 4. The Court further highlighted a letter from the Established Shippers Association of Peacock Tail Feathers, of which the petitioner was a member, supporting the respondents' interpretation of "best year's exports." The letter stated that the best year's exports meant the best exports made in any of the three years ending 30th September 1967, aligning with the respondents' position. 5. The Court dismissed the petitioner's argument that Export Instruction No. 41/85, dated 1st June 1985, supported his interpretation, noting that the wording discrepancy in the instruction was not substantial. The Court upheld the allocation of quota for 1986-87 based on the criteria laid down in Export Instruction No. 24/68, and found no justification to disturb the existing allocations. 6. In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's petition and dismissed it, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
|
