TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 09.10.2018, was not mentioned. But the same will make no difference - As the Hon ble Supreme Court had rejected I.A.No.1847 of 2019, wherein prayer for enhancement of import limit of RPC and CPC was made, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted and therefore, submission made that the representations were rejected without any application of mind pales into insignificance. Petition dismissed. - Writ Petition Nos.979 & 1043 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2021 - Mr. Justice Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice And Hon ble Mr. Justice C. Praveen Kumar For the Petitioner : Mr. Devadatta Kamat, Sr. Counsel for Challa Gunaranjan For the Respondent No. 1,2,3 : Mr. N. Harinath, Assistant Solicitor General, Mr. Suresh K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and permit the Petitioner to import raw material i.e., Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) and Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC), into the SEZ only for the purposes of manufacturing, blending and reexport, subject to the compliance of the applicable environmental laws; and SEZ Act, 2005 and SEZ Rules, 2006; (C) Direction to Respondent No.3 to grant necessary permissions for importing of Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) under Clause 2.46 (Import for Export) of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015- 2020, for Re-export after blending the same with the CPC produced by the Petitioner in the SEZ Unit, at the SEZ Unit or the Customs Bonded Warehouse; (D) pass any other further order (s) /direction (s) as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that the imported raw pet coke for the purpose of producing calcined pet coke cannot exceed 1.4 MT per annum in total. 6. The learned Senior Counsel has also very fairly drawn our attention to two I.As filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C ) No.13029 of 1985 viz., I.A.No.1451 of 2019 and I.A.No.1847 of 2019. In I.A.No.1451 of 2019, the prayer is made as follows: (a) Direct the Directorate General of Foreign Trade to allocate in favour of the applicant, 705,600 MT of RPC per annum out of the total 1.4 Million MT of RPC per annum as permitted to be imported by this Hon ble Court vide order dated 9 October, 2018 passed in W.P.No.13029 of 1985, titled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., on a continuous basis, for producing CPC; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prayers made are as follows: A ) Issue any Writ, order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in rejecting the application of the Petitioner and not allowing import of Calcined Petroleum Coke under Clause 2.46 (Import for Export) of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 vide rejection Letter dated 15 April 2019 for blending with the domestically produced CPC by the Petitioner at the Customs Bonded Warehouse itself without being cleared for domestic usage in India and meant for Re-Export only, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) 1992, Foreign Trade Policy 2015- 2020, Customs Act 1962, besides v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustries Ltd.) and I.A.No.13210/2019 (filed on behalf of Goa Carbon Ltd.). The same are hereby dismissed. 9. Having drawn our attention to the aforesaid applications and the orders, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to contend that notwithstanding dismissal of I.As, there is no impediment for this Court to entertain these petitions as the Hon ble Supreme Court had no occasion to consider import to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It is also submitted by him that the representations were mechanically rejected without even adverting to the contentions raised. 10. Mr. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Routhu Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
