Case Law Details
Amrut Impex Vs. Union of India (Delhi High Court)
The Petitioners, in all these petitions, are registered importers. The outbreak of the pandemic around early 2020 is a matter of fact which cannot be disputed. The period when the outbreak may have taken place in China, as per the Chinese exporter’s letter, ought not be doubted in the manner in which the impugned order doubts the same. It is a matter of which judicial notice can be taken. The COVID-19 pandemic originated in China, and hence the adverse effects and problems due to the outbreak could have been much earlier in China, than in India. The Chinese exporter has repeatedly contacted the Petitioners and has expressed its willingness to complete the contract and to supply the product. However, despite repeated letters and reminders requesting an extension by the Petitioners, the Government has not responded to the same, leading to the filing of these writ petitions.
These are the second round of writ petitions which have been filed by the Petitioners. The only reasoning which the impugned order provides is that there is no justification for not having completed the supplies prior to March, 2020. This court is of the opinion that this reasoning is not acceptable, as it seeks to completely ignore the fact that the outbreak had begun earlier in China, as compared to India, and COVID-19 related problems were present in China in February, leading to the non-supply of the said consignments.
The sales contracts in these petitions also show that substantial advance amounts have been paid by the Petitioners to the Chinese exporter and the total value of the contracts range between USD 106,250 – USD 273,700. The Petitioners being Indian importers, who have paid huge sums of money to the Chinese company, which is the only recognized company for the import of poppy seeds from China, would be put to severe financial difficulties if the extension is not granted. They may not be able to recover the advances paid. Considering that the pandemic has had a debilitating effect on Indian businesses, including Indian importers and exporters, there seems to be no rationale whatsoever to refuse extension. Moreover, the threat that the Chinese company may not enter into further transactions with the Petitioners, cannot be said to be devoid of merit. Even a reasonable apprehension that the said Company may either refuse to export in future or impose stringent conditions would be sufficient to consider the case for extension.
A perusal of the counter affidavit shows that the main reason for which the non-grant of extension is stated to be justified is that the lock-down in India was imposed from 24th March, 2020. The Government seeks to ignore the fact that the lock-down and the impediments caused due to the outbreak could have been earlier in China and hence in the opinion of this Court, the non-grant of extension is not tenable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
