Importer not Entitled for Proportionate Increase in Import Quota when CTO on Enhanced Production Capacity issued after Fixing Total Import Limit: SC [Read Judgement]

In a significant case, the Supreme Court has held that the importer is not entitled to the proportionate Increase in import Outa when Consent to Operate (CTO) on enhanced production capacity was issued after fixing the total import limit and upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court which set aside the increased quota allocated for the import of raw pet-coke (RPC).

The appellant, M/s. Sanvira Industries challenged the decision of the Delhi High Court, which has interfered with and set aside the minutes of the meeting as well as the decision of the Central Government allocating pet coke.

The Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) determined the criteria for the allocation of imported raw pet-coke (RPC) and allocated imported RPC among various entities. On 18.07.2018, the Central Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (“MoEF”), officers of the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority for NCR and the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (“MPNG”) decided in principle that the import of pet-coke be ought to be restricted only to industries using it as a feedstock or as part of their manufacturing process and not as fuel. This court - seized the public interest litigation (“PIL”) in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and directed implementation of the minutes of the meeting of 18.07.2018 by its order dated 26.07.2018.

Importers were obliged to obtain consent and registration issued by the concerned State Pollution Board or Pollution Control Committee (“SPB” and “PCC”). Sanvira wrote on 12.09.2018 to the Environment Pollution Control Authority (“EPCA”) intimating its production capacity of calciners and indicating that its capacity was 2,00,000 MT. The EPCA filed a report before this court with regard to the import of RPC for aluminium, calciner, and steel industries in the context of restrictions imposed on the import of RPC.

“The view expressed by the impugned judgment is correct. Barring the fact that clarification was issued on 04.05.2020, by the APPCB, there was no change in circumstance; the material document to be considered as the CTO, which for the relevant period (i.e. as of 09.10.2018) was 2,00,000 MT per annum, for Sanvira. Even according to it, the claim for enhancement was made later, and the CTO for the increased capacity was issued on 26.12.2019. In these circumstances, the clarification of APPCB, that as on a particular date, the production capacity was 3,30,000 MTPA was of no consequence because it was the CTO that was considered all along, in all previous meetings. Therefore, the findings and conclusions of the Division Bench cannot be faulted.”, the bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta.

It was held that there is no infirmity with the findings and conclusions of the Division Bench, in the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick update