TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner from discharging its obligations under concluded contracts. The interim direction granted by this Court only permits the petitioner to supply the rice that was stored in the warehouse before 20.07.2023. That would only facilitate the petitioner to discharge his obligations partially. It is fairly settled that notifications issued imposing restrictions shall not be permitted to operate retrospectively. No doubt the restrictions imposed in the notifications operate retrospectively and impede the traders from honouring their obligations. Such impediment is impermissible being in violation of the doctrine legitimate expectation. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the constitutional validity of the impugned notification, the interim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and violative of principles of natural justice besides being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 2. This Court, by placing reliance on the orders passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P .Nos. 32049, 33016, 33156 of 2022, granted interim direction vide orders dated 19.10.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2023, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to export the Non-basmati white rice stored at warehouse before 20.07.2023, subject to payment of requisite export duty in accordance with law. 3. Thereafter, I.A. No. 2 of 2023 came to be filed for modification of the order dated 19.10.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2023 praying this Court to further direct the respondents to permit the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner, Sri Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General for respondents, representing Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned Central Government counsel and Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Standing counsel for Customs. 5. Sri S. Srinivasa Reddy learned senior counsel, would submit that the impugned Notification issued banning/ prohibiting export of Non-basmati white rice with retrospective effect in relation to the contracts concluded prior to its issuance is illegal, illogical and the same would entail huge financial loss to the petitioner. Therefore, issuance of the notification is unconstitutional and the same has to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Sri Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General, representing Sri Y.V. Anil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y settled that notifications issued imposing restrictions shall not be permitted to operate retrospectively. No doubt the restrictions imposed in the notifications operate retrospectively and impede the traders from honouring their obligations. Such impediment is impermissible being in violation of the doctrine legitimate expectation. 9. In the above view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the constitutional validity of the impugned notification, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances existed in this case, the interim orders dated 19.10.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2023 is modified and the petitioner is permitted to export 18,900 Mts. of non-basmati Indian White Rice with HS Code 1006 30 80 in discharge of the contrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
