Case Law Details
VI Exports India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: The purpose of the Notification bearing No.20/2023 dated 20.07.2023 was issued by the Department of Commerce, Government of India prohibiting the export of “Non-basmati white rice (semi-milled or wholly milled rice, whether or not polished or glazed: other)”was to immediately put ban on the export of Non-basmati rice in order to meet the internal needs of the country in future therefore, the Prohibition of the export of non-basmati rice due to non-payment of export duty and non-compliance with conditions as per the notification was upheld.
Held: Assessee-company who was an exporter of rice and other agricultural products, received an Order from its overseas buyer M/s Indi Sino Trade Pte Ltd for the sale of 40,000 MT of rice which was to be exported from Kandla Port in Gujarat. Assessee purchased 28,000 MT of rice from its various vendors and started the process of packaging of rice and transportation to Kandla and thereafter, requested the Port Authority at Kandla to grant permission to assessee to store the 28,000 MT of rice. However, due to space constraints at the port, the port authorities permitted to store of only 11,000 MT of rice. Assessee stored about 11,000 MT of rice inside the port and the balance quantity of rice was stored at various private warehouses in Kandla. Assessee duly filed 28 Shipping Bills for export of 28,000 MT of rice at the customs portal between 10.07.2023 and 12.07.2023. In the interregnum, a Notification bearing No.20/2023 dated 20.07.2023 was issued by the Department of Commerce, Government of India prohibiting the export of “Non-basmati white rice (semi-milled or wholly milled rice, whether or not polished or glazed: other)”. Since the effect of the said notification would be on all pending exports, certain exemptions were granted to the consignments of Non-basmati rice in the Notification bearing No.20/2023 dated 20.07.2023. A perusal of the amendment shows that the time by which the details of the consignment had to be entered into the system was mentioned. A separate category was also introduced whereunder if the customs duty was paid before 21:57:01 hours on 20.07.2023, then the consignment could be permitted for export. Since assessee had only paid the export duty for 17 shipping bills before the stipulated time i.e., 21:57:01 hours on 20.07.2023 out of 28 shipping bills, assessee was only permitted to export 17,000 MT of rice which was covered under 17 shipping bills and was not permitted to export the remaining 11,000 MT. Aggrieved by the fact that assessee had not been permitted to export the remaining 11,000 MT of rice, the instant writ petition had been filed by assessee for a direction to the Respondent to permit assessee to export 11,000 MT of Non-basmati rice for which shipping bills had been filed by assessee and the rotation number had also been generated. It was held that the doctrine of substantial compliance and intended use would not come in aid of assessee because the purport of the Notification was to immediately put a ban on the export of Non-basmati rice, and therefore, the argument raised by assessee that assessee had substantially complied with the Notification and it had shipping bills, vessel call number (VCN) and the customs rotation number which showed the intention of assessee to export rice would not come to its aid. The purpose of the Notification was to immediately put ban on the export of Non-basmati rice in order to meet the internal needs of the country in future. In this light, this Court was not inclined to invoke the principle of substantial compliance and intended use in the facts of the present case. Writ petition was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
