9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1, 95, 859.40 due under the same Scheme. W.P. Nos. 3997, 3998 and 3999 of 1988 were filed for writs of mandamus against respondents 2 to 4 there in claiming reimbursement in a sum of Rs. 61, 676.70; Rs. 19, 07, 421/- and Rs. 11, 67, 327.90P. respectively under the same Scheme. 3. The case, shortly put in this : The first respondent in the appeals are the manufacturers of Steel Wire Ropes, which they export to foreign countries. They use Resulpharised Carbon Steel (forging quality carbon steel) for the manufacture of the said ropes. They purchase steel in the local market, but the price of steel in the local market is higher than the price in the international market. Consequently, the Indian producers, who manufacture their products out of Indian Steel are not able to compete in the global market. In order to enable the export and in order that the Indian manufacturers do not suffer unduly, the Union Government had sponsored a scheme called Internal Price Reimbursenent Scheme, 1981 (IPRS 1981). The said Scheme will be referred to as the Scheme in our judgment. In and by the Scheme, an Indian Manufacturer utilising domestic steel for manufacture of products for exports would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. 8. The second question was whether a writ will lie against respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition and they could be called authorities within Art. 12. The learned Judge on an elaborate consideration came to the conclusion that respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petitions were agencies or instrumentalities of the Union of India and are amenable to writ jurisdiction. 9. The third contention was whether the communication dated 2-9-1987 was liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. The learned Judge was of the view that even looked at it as an administrative order, it could be quashed. 10. The next question was whether any representation at all was made by the appellants before us. After analysing the scope of the Scheme, it was held that representation was made to the effect that if the scheme was followed, the manufacturers will be entitled to reimbursement of the price difference for the quality of steel used by them in the terms of the scheme. 11. The contention based on the annexure dated 15-9-1986 that the first respondent herein should have used imported high carbon steel wire rods in the manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stating that it is obvious that the only material or the basis on which the respondents in the writ petition seek to rely to show that the petitioner in the writ petition (first respondent herein) had used high carbon steel wire rods is of no assistance. In fact on 15-9-1986 the above letter was given to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports in response to a communication from the third respondent in the writ petition. In the letter issued by the Directorate General of Technical Development dated 30-4-1987 in response to a querry from the first respondent herein, it had been clarified that EN 8 DM wire rods are used in the manufacture of certain types of steel wire ropes. Under these circumstances, it was entirely for the petitioners to have proved the use of the same. It cannot be assumed as a fact and relief be granted. That is exactly what has been done by the learned single Judge. 13. Assuming that it has been so used, the Scheme, first of all, is non-statutory in character. Even otherwise, a careful reading of the same would clearly show that no promise is held out under the scheme. As to what exactly is the law of promissory estoppel can be gathered from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; therefore, they would definitely be the authorities under the control of the Union of India and hence Art. 12 of the Constitution would stand attracted. 19. We will consider whether the disputed questions of fact arise in these cases. One thing we wish to make clear that in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India, it is stated thus: .It is submitted that the petitioner did not use Resulpharised Carbon Steel (Forging quality carbon Steel) EN 8 DM as has been stated by him in the affidavit. The petitioner instead used High Carbon Wire Rods . This is borne out by the records in the possession of the Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi. A copy of a letter from M/s. Usha Inter Continental, New Delhi dated 15-9-1986 addressed to the Jt. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, which was submitted by the petitioner with his IPRS claims, which substantiates the claim of the Ministry of Commerce is given in Annexure-1. The question is whether this stand was taken earlier at any point of time by the Engineering Export Promotion Council, New Delhi or its Madras Branch. 20. Therefore, for the first time, as rightly pointed out by the learned single ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e letter dated 30-4-1987 which was in reply to the letter of the first respondent dated 2-4-1987. As to how the reply came to be addressed could be seen if we go back to the letter dated 2-4-1987 of the first respondent herein. Therein, it is stated as follows: Dated: 2nd April, 1987 The D.G.T.D. (Import and Export Cell), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. Dear Sir, We are manufacturers and exporters of steel Wire Ropes. We have been using EN 8 DM wire rods for making those ropes for exports. We had applied to the EEPC for release of claims/subsidies attaching Chartered Engineer s certificates etc. (copies enclosed herewith). But E.E.P.C. has not been able to decide, since they do not have technical expertise and have declared on confirmation from your office that EN 8 DM can be used for manufacture of steel wire ropes. Accordingly, we request to kindly confirm that EN 8 DM can be used for manufacturing Wire Ropes under advice to the Regional Manager, E.E.P.Cs, Kannammal Building (1st Floor), 612, Anna Salai, Madras-600 006. Your early consideration will help us to overcome tremendous hardships for settling overdue matters with E.E.P.C. since over six months. Thanking you ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the price difference applicable for EN 8 DM Forging Quality Steel. Your applications were considered and the matter was referred to the Ministry for obtaining certain clarifications. The Ministry vide its letter No. 12(4)/87-Ep (Engg.1) dated 12th August, 1987 has clarified that the price difference applicable for EN 8 DM steel to be taken into account only where forging quality carbon steel is used for forging purposes for manufacture of the product exported. Since no forging process is involved in the manufacture of steel wire ropes, the price difference applicable for EN 8 DM forging quality carbon steel cannot be considered; even the said material is used in the manufacture of steel wire ropes exported by you. This is for your information 22. Therefore, it could be clearly seen that at no point of time it was ever disputed about the use of Resulpharised Carbon Steel by the first respondent. If it had been used as a fact, the appellants cannot wriggle out now and set up a new case. Why we are constrained to state this is that on 30-12-1987, the Regional Manager, Engineering Export Promotion Council himself clarified the position thus : .. We have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii). In para (v), it is mentioned as follows: WHAT IS DOMESTIC PRICE ? JPC plant price as on the date of export, for the category, quantity and size concerned, will be taken as domestic price. The Council has made representation to the Government that stockyard charges being paid by the exporters should also be reimbursed under IPRS 1981. The Government has accepted the Council s plea and agreed to reimburse the difference of stockyard charges (difference between the stockyard charges in force on the date of export minus the stockyard charges in force on the date of export minus the stockyard charges as on 8-2-1981) on the exports effected on or after 10-1-1986. The difference in stockyard charges would be made applicable to the exporters only when the claims are supported with Main Products Invoices. In other words the exporters will not be eligible for the difference in stockyard charges when they submit their claim under NO MAIN PRODUCER S INVOICE SCHEME . While preparing the claim, therefore, the exporters will have to go only by prices indicated in the JPC announcements from time to time and not, repeat, not by the prices given in the main producer s invoices. On f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission of application, namely, as to where to apply and how to apply, in paragraphs (xiii) and (iv) thereof. So in accordance with this, when the first respondent submitted applications, they were forwarded by the Engineering Export Promotion Council, Southern Region, to the Engineering Export Promotion Council, New Delhi and thereafter the matter was examined. 26. Now to say that the Scheme does not hold out a representation is something which we are totally unable to appreciate. As a matter of fact, in the communication of the Government of India, dated 10th December, 1985 sent to the Executive Director, Engineering Export Promotion Council, it is stated thus: . The decision to include the new categories of steel will be applicable on export made on or after 10th December, 1985 . Here again, Resulpharised Carbon Steel is one of the items mentioned and by this letter, an amendment took place to Entry 2.1 (xiv) and (xv). 27. Nobody can claim that the Scheme was a laborious exercise and nothing more than just a matter of information. 28. Further, a portion of the claim of the First respondent in relation to reimbursement was admitted by the appellants. In other word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
