9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the petitioners seeking inter alia the following reliefs: - "a. allow the instant application and direct DGFT to allocate RPC import quota to the Applicant as per the CTO dated 29.11.2018 or on the basis of any other document which can otherwise be considered as evidence of capacity creation; or b. allow the instant application and direct DGFT to set aside quota proportionate to the Applicants capacity of 130,000 MT (sic 330,000MT) established prior to 09.10.2018, which is not considered by the DGFT and make allocation of such quota subject to outcome of the writ petition." 2. Before proceeding any further, it may be noted that the application seeking interim relief filed along with the present writ petition (CM Appl. No.6515/2020) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicant/petitioner and its grievance, if any could be redressed only by approaching the Supreme Court. 5. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate, countered the arguments of Ms. Acharya, learned ASG contending that before the Supreme Court the applicant/petitioner had never raised the plea that its capacity to produce Calcinated Petroleum Coke (CPC) was not 2 LMT, but 3.3 LMT and that therefore, the RPC be allocated accordingly. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that no one was questioning the limit placed on the import of RPC by the Supreme Court but within that import limit, the allocation to the applicant/petitioner should be commensurate with its capacity reflected in the Consent to Operate (CTO) issued to it by the Andhra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the applicant/petitioner and this bar was lifted only on 09.10.2018, when the Supreme Court permitted the import of RPC of a total amount of 1.4 LMT. Therefore, the applicant/petitioner could not have obtained a CTO prior to that day, and the rejection of the CTO dated 29.11.2018 was improper. The applications filed by the applicant/petitioner and others before the Supreme Court were only for increasing the import limit of 1.4 LMT which the Supreme Court had declined. Therefore, the various orders of the Supreme Court were not relevant to the matter at hand and not only the writ petition but the applications, including the instant one, were maintainable. 7. Extensive arguments were advanced by both sides on the question of maintainab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay leave, and there may be a variation in the desired quota by the eligible entities. This year also, the government has invited applications and a decision on allocation is yet to be taken. No doubt, the Public Notice provides, under the 'Conditions and Modalities for Application for Import of Pet Coke' that State Pollution Control Board Certificate must indicate the capacity of the unit as on 09.10.2018. The grievance of the applicant/petitioner is that it has a certificate reflecting its production capacity issued in November, 2018 but has other available documents relating to July, 2018 establishing that its enhanced capacity existed from July and was not created after 09.10.2018, i.e. after the judgment of the Supreme Court. 9. But in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
