2018 (2) TMI 1792 - HC - Customs

Vires of Public notice dated 10-1-2018 - the petitioner was directed to file their application before the second respondent well before the cut-off date and the application was directed to be received by the second respondent - Held that - The petitioner did not comply with the direction issued in paragraph No. 10 of the order dated 23-1-2018 on the ground that the petitioner does not have any contracts trade from China - Thus the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned notification. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned notification and apart from that having not complied with the interim direction issued by this Court on 23-1-2018 this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to public notice on grounds of ultra vires Customs Tariff Act and previous court orders; Request for interim relief similar to previous case in Karnataka High Court; Jurisdiction of Central Government under Foreign Trade Act; Failure to comply with court directions leading to lack of locus standi.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged a public notice issued by the second respondent, dated 10-1-2018, as ultra vires under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and contrary to previous court orders and a Supreme Court decision. The petitioner argued that restrictions on poppy seed imports and allocation by drawal of lots were beyond the jurisdiction of the Central Government.

2. The petitioner sought interim relief similar to a case in the High Court of Karnataka, where an interim order deferred drawal of lots for nearly a year. The petitioner requested a similar order to be issued in this case to prevent unnecessary drawal of lots pending final decision.

3. The challenge was based on the contention that the Central Government cannot delegate powers under the Foreign Trade Act to impose import restrictions or allocate imports by drawal of lots. The petitioner's counsel argued that only applications exceeding allowable quantities should be subject to allocation.

4. The court directed importers, including the petitioner, to file applications before the second respondent well before the cut-off date, emphasizing that the submission of applications was without prejudice to the ongoing writ petition. The court aimed to protect the interests of importers while considering commercial aspects and trade exigencies.

5. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the court's direction to file an application due to not having any trade contracts from China, leading to a lack of locus standi to challenge the notification. The court noted that the petitioner's non-compliance and lack of standing rendered the petition unentertainable.

6. Considering the petitioner's failure to comply with the court's direction and the lack of standing to challenge the notification, the court dismissed the writ petition without costs. The court highlighted the importance of complying with court directions and maintaining standing to challenge legal actions, ultimately closing the connected petitions.