9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted out by the petitioner, this review can be deemed a blind review, given that no criteria were specified in the said Minutes with respect to the potential allocation - this public notice pertains to FY 2023-24, and there is no such public notice informing the Petitioners or the general public about such a criteria for FY 2024-25. The Court understands that the intent behind the review exercise is to ensure that the TRQ allocations are specifically adhered to. Therefore, the Respondents objective in conducting the review appears to be solely to ensure that the TRQ imports under the India-UAE CEPA are fully met - the Court is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate at this stage, without delving deep into the merits of the case, to direct the DGFT to examine all the issues raised by the Petitioners in the present petitions and issue a fresh decision on the basis thereof. Furthermore, it is undisputed that as of today, no re-allocations have been made pursuant to the impugned Minutes of Meeting in the present proceedings. Therefore, it is directed that the current allocations be maintained until a decision is made following the review process. The above exercise shall be ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tween the governments that tariff concession/relief of 1% will be provided to the Indian gold importers in a phased manner, prescribing the quantity of gold bullion available for allotment for each year. For the Financial Year 2024-25, gold TRQ of 160 tonnes was decided. 2.3 Thereafter, the Handbook of Procedure, 2023 [ Handbook ] was notified through public notice dated 01st April, 2023 in exercise of powers conferred under Paragraph Nos. 1.03 and 2.04 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. Paragraph No. 2.16 of the Handbook specifies the validity period of license/ certificate from the date of issuance. The table following Paragraph No. 2.16 prescribes different validity periods, the minimum being 12 months, with the exception of Serial No. 7. Further, Paragraph No. 2.20 of the Handbook provides for re-validation of license/ certificate, allowing for an extension for a further period of 6 months. 2.4 The Petitioners applied for TRQ in CEPA for import of gold bars. Subsequently, a meeting was held on 15th April, 2024 at the DGFT (HQ) for consideration of the allocation of bullion TRQs under CEPA for FY 2024-25. The relevant part of the Minutes of the said Meeting are as follows: 6. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t-Surrender 11 630 2 Retain 179 NA 3 Enhancement 260 2,18,372.5 The Committee noted that the requests received for additional allocations are way above the quantity available. 5. The Committee also took note of the Delhi High Court Order dated 06.09.2024 in matters of Writ Petition (C) No. 9503 of 2024 and Writ Petition (C) No. 9503 of 2024 and accordingly, decided to consider the request of allocation in compliance of the Court Order. 6. The Committee decided to re-allocate the TRQs of the balance quantity based on the following Modalities - i. Applicants who had utilised 25% or less than 25% allocated TRQ quantities in 6 months i.e. upto 30th September, 2024, their allocations shall be revised to half (50%) of their original allocations. ii. Applicants who had utilised 75% or more ( less than 95%) of their allocated TRQ quantities in 6 months i.e. upto 30th September, 2024, shall be eligible for additional allocation of 1 time of their original TRQ allocations. iii. Applicants who had utilised 95% or more of their allocated TRQ quantities in 6 months i.e. upto 30th September, 2024, shall be eligible for additional allocation of 1.5 times of their original TRQ allocations. iv. Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been accepted. 3.2 The criteria for the revision of the TRQ allocation were never communicated to the Petitioners and therefore, they had no basis to anticipate that their imports would need to align with the criteria subsequently notified in the meeting held on 8th November, 2024. 3.3 The licenses of all the Petitioners are valid up to 31st March, 2025 and therefore, the allocation of the TRQs could not have been revised before the expiry of the said period. 3.4 The mid-term review of the quota also contravenes the provisions of the Handbook. Paragraph 2.16 of the Handbook specifies a minimum validity period of 12 months, with the exception of the items listed in Serial No. 7, which does not apply to the present case. Therefore, the impugned action of revised allocation is in violation of the Handbook. 3.5 Without prejudice to the above, Mr. Gulati submits that the Petitioners should, at the very least, be given an opportunity to present their grounds to the Respondents before the impugned Minutes of Meeting are implemented. He emphasizes that each case must be assessed on its individual merits, as there may be several critical factors that could have prevented the Petitioners f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tential allocation. Furthermore, the public notice referred to by the Respondents only addresses cases where TRQ utilization, in the review process, is 25%, without providing further details regarding other quantities of utilisation. Moreover, this public notice pertains to FY 2023-24, and there is no such public notice informing the Petitioners or the general public about such a criteria for FY 2024-25. 7. That being said, the Court understands that the intent behind the review exercise is to ensure that the TRQ allocations are specifically adhered to. Therefore, the Respondents objective in conducting the review appears to be solely to ensure that the TRQ imports under the India-UAE CEPA are fully met. However, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, since the review decision was made without affording the Petitioners an opportunity to be heard, and Ms. Shiva Lakshmi has also indicated that the Petitioners should have first approached the DGFT with their concerns, the Court is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate at this stage, without delving deep into the merits of the case, to direct the DGFT to examine all the issues raised by the Petitioners in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
