9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons for extension of time to complete its export obligations were rejected. 2. It is the petitioner's case that it was unable to complete the export obligations for reasons beyond its control. The petitioner claims that in view of the orders passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) bearing PIL No. 29523 of 2014 captioned Kisan Mazdoor Sangathan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., the stocks of white sugar produced by the petitioner were placed under the control of the District Magistrate and the petitioner was unable to export the same. 3. The petitioner, accordingly, claims that it is entitled to extension of time for completing the export obligations and the denial of the same is arbitrary an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to make payment to sugarcane growers from whom they had purchased sugarcane in the previous year. Consequently, the State Government (under orders of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court) had taken control of the sugar lying with manufacturers including the petitioner in order that the same may be sold to make payments to the sugarcane growers directly. The petitioner also claimed that it requested the District Magistrate, Hapur to release stock of sugar required to be exported; however, the same was not released. 7. The petitioner claims that since no action was taken by PRC with regard to its application dated 09.10.2014, the petitioner filed another application dated 23.06.2015 once again requesting for extension of time to perform it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner had a vested right to be considered under the FTP and HoP as existing prior to 01.04.2015. 10. This Court is not persuaded to accept any of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. First of all, the contention that the petitioner was disabled from performing its export obligation is not sustainable. In terms of the Advanced Authorization, the petitioner was to complete its export obligation by 30.04.2014. At the material time, there was no order passed by any Court that restricted or prevented the petitioner from completing its export obligation. The interim order by virtue of which arrangement was made for liquidation of a portion of the sugar stocks was passed by the Allahabad High Court on 13.08.2014, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation period and this Court finds no infirmity in the decision of the respondents to reject such request. 14. In view of the above, it is not necessary to consider the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of HoP/FTP 2015-20 to the Advance Authorisation in question. However, for the sake of completeness, it would be apposite to consider the said question as well. 15. This court is of the view that the contention that petitioner's application dated 23.06.2015 was required to be considered as per the provisions of the HoP as in force prior to 01.04.2015 is also unmerited. The petitioner has no vested right for grant of extension of the export obligation period and thus its application for extension would necessari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
