Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 194 - HC - CustomsRestriction on import of yellow peas - Validity of notification dated 25.04.2018, a trade notice dated 18.05.2018 and a further notification dated 30.08.2018 - It appears that the petitioner applied for registration but, such registration was not granted - vide notification No. 4 of 20152000 the category of peas changed from existing free category to the restricted category - petitioner contends that through the trade notice dated 18.05.2018, the Government of India could not have made amendments or changes in the notification dated 25.04.2018. Accordingly in case of those importers like the present petitioner who has already made advance payment in part for the imports, policy change brought about by virtue of notification dated 25.04.2018 would have no application. Held that:- In case of Kinshuk Overseas Pvt Ltd versus Union of India [2018 (10) TMI 1424 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], we had occasion to examine these policy changes in the background of facts where the petitioners' therein were the importers had not only placed import orders coupled with advance part payment before 25.04.2018, but were also granted registration for import which registrations were sought to be cancelled. Subsequent to issuance of the trade notice dated 18.05.2018, the Court had granted interim relief protecting their imports. Substantial imports were made - In case of the present petitioners even registration was not granted. The petitioner's first contention therefore must be rejected. The petitioner's second grievance is that the restrictions were withdrawn by notification dated 29.08.2018. Though the same may have been reimposed on 30.08.2018, at least for one day, no restrictions were prevailed. The case of the petitioner should have been cleared on such date - Held that:- The notification was withdrawn only in view of the interim order passed by the Madras High Court and presumably to cure a technical defect. Very next day, the same set of restrictions were reimposed. The petitioner cannot argue that in this window of one day, the petitioner's imports should have been cleared. The petitioner had not made the imports during the period when even if we accept the petitioner's contention to be true, such restrictions did not apply - The insistence of verification of full advance payment therefore is confined to any claim of importer that he falls within the description of import already made. This contention of the petitioners is therefore rejected. Petition disposed off.
|