9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October, 2018 to March, 2019) by virtue of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [2018 (11) TMI 1352 - SUPREME COURT] - There is, thus, no reason not to permit manufacturers from importing RPC up to the aforesaid limit. In the present case, there are only three applicants who had applied for distribution of the utilised quantity and the shortfall in their cases - Since, it is apparent that the endeavour of the respondents was to allocate the unutilised quantity on the basis of the shortfall, it would be apposite for the respondents to allocate the same on the basis of the shortfall, subject to the limit that the total allocated quantity does not exceed the half yearly input capacity. The allocation as made in the impugned minutes, is set aside and the respondents are directed to re-compute the allocation of the aforesaid basis; that is on the basis of shortfall between the quantity of RPC applied for and the quantity allocated - Petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 1784/2019 & CM Nos. 8349/2019 & 8350/2019 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2019 - MR. VIBHU BAKHRU J. Petitioners Through: Mr. P. Chidambaram, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... val more than 90%. The views expressed by the CPCB have been considered by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change which is in agreement with the CPCB. It is stated by learned amicus curiae that the views expressed by the CPCB are also acceptable to EPCA. Consequently, raw pet coke (domestic and imported) can be used as a feedstock for producing calcined pet coke. We make it clear that the imported raw pet coke for this purpose cannot exceed 1.4 MT per annum in total. Applications stand disposed of. 4. It is not disputed that prior to the aforesaid order, RPC could be freely imported by manufacturers in India. Since the restrictions were imposed in October 2018, the respondents have proportionately restricted the import of RPC at 0.7 million MT for the period October, 2018 to March, 2019. 5. The minutes of the meeting held on 08.02.2019 (impugned minutes) includes a tabular statement indicating the manner in which the allocation of RPC was made amongst various manufactures. The said table is set out below:- S.No. Name of the Firm Capacity Quantity applied for Impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remained unutilised on account of certain manufacturers deciding to not import the said material. 7. In view of the further headroom available, the respondents decided to allocate the surrendered quantity to the three manufacturers (the petitioner, Sanvira Industries Ltd. and Petro Carbon and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.) whose demand for allocation could not be fully satisfied. 8. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved with the manner in which the excess surrendered quantity has been allocated. The relevant extract of the impugned minutes, indicating the manner in which additional quantity has been allocated to the three manufacturers whose demands were not fully met, is set out below:- 6. It accordingly decided to allocate the available quota amongst these three applicants not exceeding their half of the annual production capacity and made allocation to them as given below. The Committee also observed that since no request has been received for allocation of CPC, hence no allocation is to be made from the surrendered quantity of CPC. S.No. Name of the Firm Capacity Quantity applied for Import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n restricted to 1.4 Million MT per annum (0.7 Million MT for the period October, 2018 to March, 2019) by virtue of the order of the Supreme Court. There is, thus, no reason not to permit manufacturers from importing RPC up to the aforesaid limit. 13. It is apparent from the impugned minutes that the respondents have made the allocation with the object to facilitate the manufacturers to produce CPC to the extent of their production capacity. However, this object is plainly not served since the input required for meeting the production capacity is much larger. 14. In this context, Mr Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that there are different proportions of input and output for different manufacturers and, therefore, the respondents would not be able to approportionate the excess quantity in that ratio. In the present case, this situation could be easily addressed by examining the quantity applied for by each applicant and the quantity allocated. Plainly, if the quantity applied for is within the overall limit of the imports permitted by the Supreme Court, there could be no impediment in respondents allocating quantity to that level. 15. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
