9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , an Assessing Committee was appointed and assessed the capacity for a consumption of each of the units and was certified. The petitioner's in C.W.P. 1974/84, capacity of consumption was assessed to the tune of 16,700 M.Ts. per annum and this was the decision of the Technical Committee appointed by the Central Government. The same was published and the name of the petitioner appears at page 201 at the said publication whereas the assessed capacity for consumption has been shown as 16700 M.Ts. per annum. In case of petitioner, in C.W.P. 2133/84, the capacity was assessed to the tune of 2900 M.Ts. per annum. He has filed a copy of the capacity certificate dated May 26,1982 which states that based on the capacity assessed by the Technical Committee on re-rolling industry, the capacity of the firm is assessed as 2900 metric tonnes only per annum. 3. During the policy periods upto AM-1983, the said re-rollable scrap was under O.G.L. By means of public notice dated November 17,1982 the said item was canalised and accordingly the same could be imported only through canalising agency which was specified as Metal Scrap Trading Corporation. The import and export policy for the year AM-1984 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application of the petitioner was acknowledged by MSTC and certain clarifications were sought which were later supplied. 5. By letter dated September 12,1983, MSTC wrote to the petitioner that they had studied petitioner's phased requirement for the current year of 16,000 tonnes and stated that the materials sought to be imported by the petitioner were then available with the following steel plants of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. :- 1. M/s. Rourkela Steel Plant. 2. M/s. Durgapur Steel Plant. 3. M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. The petitioner was directed to approach the above-mentioned steel plants for his requirement of re-rollable scrap of carbon steel. The petitioner wrote identical letters to the aforesaid three steel plants giving the requirements of re-rollable scrap and sought information regarding the allotment of the same, type, price and quantity of material proposed to be allotted. The petitioner also wrote to MSTC informing them of the requisition made with the three steel plants of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (for short called SAIL) and at the same time requesting MSTC to consider the issue of 'No Objection Certificate' at least 50% of the petitioner's capaci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, 1983, the petitioner also approached the Monitoring Committee of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce for direct import of re-rollable scrap on actual user condition as para the provision of para 155(1) of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedure ofAM-1984. The petitioner also sent a reminder on February 1,1984 to the Monitoring Committee and a detailed representation in the letter dated February 15,1984 to Shri P.C. Jain, Chief Controller of Imports & Exports. 8. It now appears from the material produced by the respondents that the case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions came up for consideration before the Monitoring Committee's meeting of direct import of canalised items held on March 21, 1984. Case No. 29 related to M/s. Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills, Madras and Case No. 30 related to M/s. Raj Laxmi Enterprises, Madras. The minutes record that SAIL informed the Committee that these two parties had registered their demand with their Branch Office at Madras but had not lifted any material from them during the last one year, that the SAIL further informed that they are in a position to supply to these parties re-rollable scrap, that on a query from the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to the filing of the writ petition, the case of the petitioner was again placed before the Monitoring Sub-Committee on direct import of canalised items in the meeting held on October 15, 1984. In case of Shri Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills, Madras, the minutes record that it was pointed out by the Chairman that the party has gone to the Court on account of non-supply of material by SAIL and CCI&E and Monitoring Committee has also been impleaded as one of the respondents, that the case was discussed earlier by the Monitoring Committee in its meeting held on March 21, 1984, that as SAIL was reported to be in a position to supply the material, it was decided to reject the party's request for direct import and the party was accordingly advised to contact SAIL for supply of the material and that since SAIL are not in a position to meet the full requirement of the party, it was decided by the Committee to grant a direct import licence to the party for import of re-rollable scrap. We may record here that during the pendency of the writ petition, SAIL had made a supply to the tune of about 548 MT against L/c dated May 11, 1984. The petitioner has also been granted an import licence for dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly re-rollable scrap, the petitioner again approached the SAIL. The SAIL authorities desired by their letter dated May 8,1984 that a confirmed L/C for about 500 MT be opened at one time and the value was shown to the tune of Rs. 2,905/- per MT. The petitioner immediately opened a confirmed revolving L/C of Rs. 20 lacs to cover the price of about 600 MT at one point of time. There was no further requirement or duty of the petitioner. He was entitled to receive the allotments and despatch of the re-rollable scrap periodically. Except for the supply made in January, 1985, during the pendency of the writ petition of a quantity of 540 MT, no material has been delivered to the petitioner. 14. One of the contentions raised at the Bar by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the capacity of the petitioner (C.W.P.1974/84) of consumption was never assessed to the tune of 16,700 MT per annum. Except for the bald statement at the Bar, there is no foundation for this argument. The petitioner had clearly made averment in para 5 of the writ petition that to know the requirement, Assessing Committee was appointed and assessed the capacity of the petitioner. The decision of the Technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had a raw deal by the respondents. The canalising agency after receiving the requirements of the petitioner directed them to SAIL who in turn directed them to AISRA who ultimately expressed their inability to make any recommendation in case of the petitioner for allotment of the raw material. The petitioner then approached the Monitoring Committee for direct Import of re-rollable scrap to the tune of its capacity when again the SAIL made a tall claim of being in a position to supply re-rollable scrap to the petitioner. Even after registering and completing all formalities on May 11,1984, all that the petitioner has been able to procure is only 540 MT against its assessed capacity of 16,700 MT. The Import Export Policy of AM-1984 in para 71 says that the period for delivery of the quantities so registered may extend beyond the period of the policy. It is conceded by the respondents that the import of the raw material required by the petitioner is not a banned item even now and its import is only canalised. Some difficulty was expressed by the learned counsel for the respondents about the availability of the foreign exchange but that cannot stand scrutiny. The foreign exchange is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
