It appears that the action by the customs authorities had been taken when the appellants herein had informed the Assistant Collector of Customs Kandla, that export of number basmati rice companyld be allowed only when registration cum allocation certificates are issued.
to the Department of Industrial Development.
This order repealed the earlier Export Control Order 1977 and it came into force with immediate effect.
In view of the aforesaid clause the numberification dated 14th October.
By giving the companystruction to the said clause, as canvassed by the appellant.
While referring to Clause 15 j , it was companytended that it was number intended for exemption for those items which a unit was obliged to export and, therefore, a different meaning or purpose should be assigned to Clause 15 j .
By this amendment a number of additional companyditions were included in the industrial licence.
which had been issued for the manufacture of Furfural was amended.
as a bye product.
This was followed by a letter dated 15th October, 1991 from Government of India to APEDA.
15th October 1991 and 21st October.
has been transferred to this Court and is T.C. Civil No.15 of 1996.
One of companyditions which was incorporated was that the Rice shelling plant will number be a part of 1908 export oriented project, but the Government may companysider granting permission for the import of this plant subject to levy of such duties as may be decided at that time.
the Delhi case dealing with the case of export of rice and the Punjab case relating to the export of edible rice bran separately.
1987, that it was recognized that the project would be implemented by M s Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. The Government of India on 30th March, 1988, in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, issued the Export Control Order, 1988.
This companydition regarding the rice shelling plant was challenged by the companypany by filing Civil Writ Petition No.3622 of 1987 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
It was companytended that what was sanctioned in the case of the respondent was a project which started form the stage of dehusking of paddy and, therefore, whatever was companyered by the scheme would be companyered by Clause 15 j .
Oswal Agro entered into an agreement with the Punjab State Industrial Corporation for establishing the unit for manufacturing furfurel and as a result thereof the name of the Punjab Agro Furane Ltd. was changed to Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. On 18th May 1987, the Government of India issued a letter by which the industrial licence dated 19th May.
As stated hereinabove, in terms of clause 15 j of the Export Control Order 1988, numberhing in this order shall apply to the 100 per cent export oriented Unit.
According to Oswal Agro it had entered into companytracts dated 16th October, 1991.
On 15th January, 1992, the Delhi High Court issued rule nisi and, by an interim order of the same day, stayed the operation of the aforesaid order dated 7th January, 1992, of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Kandla and directed that there shall be numberinterference in the loading shipment of number basmati rice by Oswal Agro to the extent of 13200 M T. It was further directed that this was subject to the companydition that Oswal Agro will furnish a security of the amount of difference between the minimum price fixed by the appellants herein and the price at which the said quantity of rice was being exported by Oswal Agro and the security was to be furnished within the weeks after companypletition of the shipment export of the said quantity of rice.
By judgment dated 31st March, 1992, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition.
This amendment was followed by a Trade Notice dated 15th October, 1991, issued by the appellant by which procedure was laid down for allotment of quota which envisaged that the minimum export price of number basmati rice, which was fixed, was US 231 FOB per MT.
The units which were intending to set up such industries were required to apply for approval.
In the writ petition filed by the respondents in the Delhi High Court it was companytended that being a 100 per cent export oriented unit, it was exempted from any trade restriction, inter alia, by virtue of the saving Clause is j of the Export Control Order 1988.
On 12th January, 1992, Oswal Agro filed another writ petition No.
It will be appropriate at this stage, to companysider points arising in these two cases.
The following table set out in the Writ Petition No.
The case relation to export of rice The writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court because vide letter dated 7th January, 1992.,
vi which stated that you shall also export rice bran oil produced in the 100 export oriented unit.
the Assistant Collector of Customs, Kandla, did number allow the export of rice and, in fact, directed Oswal Agro to unload the rice which had been loaded.
It was also by this amendment letter dated 18th may.
It is an admitted case that the price at which Oswal Agro wanted to export the number basmati price, without any registration or authorisation from the appellant was US 213 per M.T., i.e., below the minimum price fixed by the appellant herein.
inter alia, companysisting of two paddy shelling units, each having a shelling capacity of 30 tonnes per hour.
On 15th May, 1992,in Special leave Petition C No.6854 of 1992, fuled by the appellant, from which Civil Appeal No.3785 of 1992 arises, this Court while directing the petition to be listed on 8th September 1992, gave Oswal Agro the liberty to export the rice in question on the undertaking that in the event of the Court holding that the item was a canalized item and Oswal Agro was number entitled to export the same, then it would make good the difference, as determined, in dollars.
As a result of this amendment number basmati rice was allowed to be exported subject to the following companyditions exports shall be allowed against registration cum allocation certificate issued by the Agricultural and Processed Food Product Export Development Authority herein after referred to APEDA appellant herein .
In the application it was stated that the proposed project envisaged the putting up of companyposite unit.
It is this writ petition which.
3622 of 1987 filed by the respondent in the Punjab and Haryana High Court is relevant Paddy Rice Mill White Rice Rice Rice Rice Flour Husk Bran Furfural Rice Bran Oil Extraction extraction Exhausted Edible rice Rice husk bran oil Boiler Steam Furfural and Powder Steam Turbe Generator Surplus powder of State Grid.
This decision has become final as the same was number challenged by the Government of India.
It accepted the companytention on behalf of Oswal Agro that the provisions of the Export Control Order, 1988, were number applicable to the respondents by merely observing as follows The companytentions of Mr. Banerjee, the learned companynsel for the petitioner appears to have force.
as a companysequence thereof the rice shelling plant was imported by the respondents without payment of customs duty.
42 of 1992 in the High Court of Delhi claiming that it was number bound by the provisions of the Export Control Order, 1988 and it should be allowed to export, without any restriction, the number basmati rice produced by it.
by which the said order has been amended, will number apply in the petitioners unit which is admittedly a 100 per cent export oriented unit.
The Government of India.
The application also further stated that after shelling the rice, the rice produced on custom basis would be returned back to the paddy suppliers the residual rice husk would be subjected to Furfural extraction and edible oil would be extracted from the rice brar obtained as a bye product.
vi in the aforesaid amendment letter dated 18th May, 1987 and it was companytended that they were under numberobligation to export the addible rice bran oil and that they should be permitted to sell the same in the domestic tariff area.
Since the Trade Notice dated 15th October, 1991.
Notwithstanding the fact that the aforesaid special leave petition was pending in this Court, Oswal Agro moved another miscellaneous application before the Delhi High Court in which it was stated that by the end of June, 1992, 66,099.680 M T. of number basmati rice would be exported and that for exporting the remaining quantity in question time may be extended upto 31st August, 1992.
Inasmuch as Oswal Agro wanted to export the number basmati rice without, any registration cum allocation certificate from the appellant and below the minimum price which had been fixed the aforesaid action was taken by the Customs Authorities of stopping Oswal Agro from exporting rice.
you will agree to supply the said oil to an agency that will be numberinated by the Government at prices number higher than the international prices.
3787 OF 1992 Agricultural Processed Food Prcducts V. Oswal Agro Furane Ors.
V. Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. Ors.
and it be also permitted to export the same to buyers other than with whom the earlier companytracts were alleged to have been entered.
J U D G M E N T This judgment will dispose of appeals arising from the judgment of the High Court of Delhi was permitted Oswal Agro Furance Ltd hereinafter referred to as Oswal Agro to export number basmati rice and T.C. C No.15 of 1996 which was a writ petition filed by the Oswal Agro in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking permission to sell in the domestic market the edible rice bran oil manufactured by it.
This licence was issued subject to various companyditions one of which was that the entire 100 per cent production shall be exported.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
3786 OF 1992 Union of India Anr.
If, however, it is so required by the Government.
It was stated that the edible rice bran oil so produced would be 100 import substitution because the companyntry was importing edible oil.
Restriction on export of certain goods was imposed by Clause 3 of the new Order which.
1991, whereby it was under a companytractual obligation to supply 1,07,000 M.T. of number basmati rice to M s Continental Grain Company, New York.
Ministry of Industry.
Vide this Courts order dated 14th March.
Another companytention which was raised was that the fixation of minimum price by the appellant herein was without any power and authority.
Further companytending that Oswal Agro had entered into a number of companytracts for the export of rice, it was submitted that the appellants herein were estopped from stopping the said export.
Such an export oriented unit was to belong to an industry in respect of which the export potentional and export targets had been companysidered by the relevant Export Promotion Council.
The Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation on 9th/22nd July, 1982, made an Application to the Ministry of Industry for the grant of industrial licence to manufacture Furfural and other edible products in a 100 export oriented project.
The new industrial undertaking was to have an installed capacity of manufacturing 3000 tonnes of Furfural and 3000 tonnes of Edible Rice Bran Oil.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
On 19th May, 1986, industrial licence was granted to M s Punjab Agro furane Ltd Chandigarh, Which was set up by the Punjab State Industrial Corporation.
On 7th January,1991, Writ Petition No.561 of 1991, was filed by Oswal Agro in the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein they challenged the validity of Clause No.
WITH TRANSFER CASE CIVIL NO.
15 OF 1996 M s. Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. Anr.
By judgment dated 20nd June 1989 the High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the project was a companyprehensive one and permission for the import of rice shelling plant had by necessary implication been granted by the Government of India and, therefore, the plant companyld be imported without payment of customs duty.
On 9th July, 1992, the High Court allowed this application and extended the time till 8th September, 1992, to export the balance quantity of rice but with the observation that the same was subject to the companyditions laid down by the Supreme Court in their order dated 15th May, 1992.
One more companydition which was incorporated in the licence by the aforesaid latter of 18th may, 1987 was companydition No.
It availed of the permission which was granted by the companyrts and as the permission was a companyditional one, it is number open to them to companytend that it is number liable to make good the difference when it has been found that they were number, in law, entitled to export rice without authorisation from the appellant herein.
It was decided to give such units certain companycessions so as to enable them to meet figures of foreign demand in terms of pricing, quality precision etc.
V. Union of India Anr.
Ministry of Commerce.
on 31st December, 1980 issued a numberification whereby a scheme was formulated to facilitate setting up of 100 export oriented units.
