Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2020 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 389 - HC - CustomsImport of poppy seeds - contracts for import of poppy seeds from Turkey - Non-registration by the respondent no.2- the Narcotics Commissioner - It is the case of the petitioners that in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy, poppy seeds are freely importable, subject only to the conditions mentioned in Clause 3, Chapter 12, Section II of Schedule 1 of the Import Policy - HELD THAT:- Though described as freely importable, the import of poppy seeds is subject to the policy conditions, which inter alia restrict the countries from which such imports can be made; the requirement of such opium poppy being grown legally in that country; and the registration of the import contracts with the respondent no.2 in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the Department of Revenue, which may inter alia include fixing of the Country Cap - The ‘National Policy on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances’, in Clause 17 provides that the import of poppy seeds will continue till self-sufficiency is achieved. Therefore, the intent of the policy is clearly to promote consumption of the domestic production. In the present case, though the Committee appointed in terms of Clause 1 of the Guidelines acknowledges the availability of 8438 MTs of poppy seeds in Turkey for exports to India, the Competent Authority has taken into account the imports allowed from China and Czechoslovakia, the domestic licit production of poppy seeds in 2019, and the expected production/availability of poppy seeds in April-May, 2020, for its decision to finalize the Country Cap at 18000 MT. Such determination cannot, therefore, be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable - In terms of Clause I of the Guidelines, the Competent Authority has to base its decision determining the Country Cap on the recommendation of the Committee constituted in terms of the said Clause. However, it cannot be said that such recommendation is binding on the Competent Authority, that is, the Department of Revenue. The Competent Authority, for germane reasons, may decide not to agree with the recommendations, as has happened in the present case. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners of ‘first cum first serve’ principle having been followed by the respondents or the registration being made by the respondents in some arbitrary manner, cannot also be sustained - Clause 3 of the MOU between the Government of India and Government of Turkey casts a responsibility on the TMO not to register sales contract in excess of the Country Cap declared by the Government of India. It would be for the TMO therefore, to determine in what manner and following what procedure such contracts shall be registered by it. It can also not be said that the respondents have failed to discharge any duty by not inquiring from the TMO about the non-registration of petitioners’ contracts. In any case, the occasion for the respondents to adopt ‘first cum first serve’ principle would never arise. Petition dismissed.
|