9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1261 - HC - CustomsDuty Free Import Authorization Scheme - issuance of the authorization - Held that - as they appear to have completed all the formalities for the issuance of the authorization and almost 17 such authorizations had been issued in favor of the petitioner on similar set of facts - since a strong prima facie case is made out by the petitioner, we direct the respondents to issue the necessary authorizations in favour of the petitioner only on the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking that the petitioner would be liable to pay the customs duty in case it ultimately fails in the writ petition. Permission for intervention in the writ petition - Held that - If the applicant is aggrieved by the application of the Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme to the parties like the petitioner on the ground that it would allegedly affect its business, the appropriate remedy for the applicant would be to challenge the Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme and not to be an intermeddler in a petition where the applicant, who wishes to avail the Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme has sought for the authorization - application dismissed. Application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking issuance of Duty Free Import Authorization. 2. Application for intervention in the writ petition. 3. Application for impleadment in the writ petition. Analysis: Issue 1: Petitioner seeking issuance of Duty Free Import Authorization The petitioner had applied for Duty Free Import Authorization under the Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme. The High Court found that the petitioner had completed all formalities for the issuance of the authorization and had previously received 17 such authorizations on similar grounds. The Court noted a strong prima facie case in favor of the petitioner based on the scheme's requirements. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to issue the necessary authorizations to the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner undertakes to pay customs duty if the writ petition fails. The order was specified to govern pending applications only. Issue 2: Application for intervention in the writ petition (Civil Appln. No. 950 of 2018) An applicant sought intervention in the writ petition, claiming that granting the Duty Free Import Authorization to the petitioner, who imports maize for popcorn production, would harm their business of exporting starch powder. The Court held that the applicant was not a proper party to the petition. The Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme, under the Foreign Trade Policy, governs the relationship between the petitioner and the Union of India. The Court cited relevant Supreme Court judgments and dismissed the application, emphasizing that challenging the scheme itself would be the appropriate remedy for the applicant. Issue 3: Application for impleadment in the writ petition (Civil Appln. No. 930 of 2018) Another applicant sought impleadment in the writ petition, arguing that granting the petitioner authorization would adversely affect their business as they also deal with maize products. The Court reiterated that the applicant was not a proper party to the petition, as the dispute primarily concerned the petitioner and the Union of India under the Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme. The Court referred to previous judgments and dismissed the application, stating that challenging the scheme directly would be the suitable course of action for the applicant. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the petitioner's entitlement to Duty Free Import Authorization, rejected applications for intervention and impleadment in the writ petition, and emphasized the need to challenge the scheme itself if aggrieved by its implications on business operations.
|
