Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 739 - HC - CustomsSeizure of import of goods without licence - Refusal to to grant P5 license under Ammonium Nitrate Rules 2012 - special category explosive substance" - Countervailing Duty in terms of N/N.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - whether this Court while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, needs to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in refusing to grant P5 license to the petitioner under the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012? HELD THAT:- Though the petitioner claims that the Ammonium Nitrate is also a fertilizer, it is seen that by virtue of the Notification dated 21.07.2011, issued by the Union of India through its Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Ammonium Nitrate is deemed to be an "explosive" within the meaning of the Explosives Act, 1884, when it has the chemical formula as stipulated in the said notification. The petitioner is not entitled to seek P5 license either as a matter of routine or right, when national security is projected by the respondents 1 and 2 for refusing to grant the P5 license to persons other than the user of the same -Perusal of the order of the Original Authority in refusing to grant license and the order of the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeal would undoubtedly indicate that there is no scope for the writ petitioner to seek indulgence of this Court to interfere with those orders, more particularly, when the rejection was made in the interest of national security and based on a policy decision. It is seen from the order of the Original Authority, issuance of license in Form P5 for import of Ammonium Nitrate will be considered only in favour of Ammonium Nitrate user and not to a person, who is a trader of the same. It is not the case of the petitioner that it is the user of Ammonium Nitrate. On the other hand, admittedly, it is only a trader. Under Rule 16 of the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012, it is stated that no license for import or export of Ammonium Nitrate by land shall be granted without the previous sanction of the Central Government in each case, wherein the Central Government may impose conditions and restrictions in consultation with the Chief Controller - Therefore, it is evident that even for issuing the license for import by the Licensing Authority, previous sanction from the Central Government in each case is necessary and that the Central Government may impose conditions and restrictions while granting such sanction. Now, it is stated that the Government has taken a policy decision not to permit import of Ammonium Nitrate to a person, who is not a user. Therefore, in view of the above Rule 16 position as well, the petitioner's claim was rightly rejected. The very act of the petitioner in disposing the earlier imported Ammonium Nitrate to various third parties, who are not possessing valid P3 license, would clearly indicate that the petitioner is undoubtedly not the user of Ammonium Nitrate and on the other hand, it is only interested in trading the same, that too, by selling it to several individuals, who are stated to be the persons without P3 license - Needless to say that accumulating small quantities of Ammonium Nitrate periodically would result in gathering larger quantity in the hands of unknown and unidentifiable persons and hence allowing such trade to go on will not be the interest of national security. Therefore, the Authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for P5 license, with which, this Court finds no reasons or grounds to interfere, more particularly, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed.
|