The imposition of the 'actual user' condition in the import licences was without jurisdiction as it was non-mandatory under the tariff rate quota scheme since 2003, as clarified by public notice No.47/2009-2014 dated 18.05.2011.

JUDGMENT

Ujjal Bhuyan, J. - Heard Mr. Vikram Nankani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajshekhar Govilkar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of the following orders:-

i. Order-in-original dated 14.02.2014 passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi;

ii. Order-in-appeal dated 24.07.2015 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi; and

iii. Order in review dated 04.11.2015 passed by the Director General of Foreign Trade i.e., respondent No.3 and

further seeks a direction to respondent No.3 to delete the condition of 'actual user' in the two licenses bearing Nos.0550001698 dated 31.12.2009 and 0550001804 dated 09.04.2010 issued by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 for importing maize (corn) for and on behalf of the petitioner. An alternative prayer has been made by the petitioner to remand the matter back to respondent No.1 to adjudicate the matter afresh after quashing the above orders dated 14.02.2014, 24.07.2015 and 04.11.2015.

3. Relevant facts as has been pleaded and which can be culled out from the documents on record may be briefly encapsulated as under.

4. Petitioner as a trading house was incorporated in the year 1919. In the year 1997, it was incorporated into a private limited company. It is basically engaged in the business of export of rice, oil seed, food grains and pulses. In this connection, petitioner has been granted trading house certificate by the appropriate authority. Petitioner is also engaged in the import of green peas, yellow peas and corn directly as well as canalized through public sector undertakings. Petitioner is having its registered office at Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra.

5. Respondent No.4 is a public sector undertaking and is a recognized state trading enterprise for import of maize (corn). Maize (corn) is an item the import of which was allowed under the tariff rate quota scheme.

6. On 20.11.2009, petitioner approached respondent No.4 for import of maize (corn) under tariff rate quota as per public notice issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade i.e., respondent No.3. On that basis, respondent No.4 submitted application dated 25.11.2009 in the office of Joint Directorate General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi i.e., respondent No.1 for an import licence for import of 7000MT of maize (corn) under tariff rate quota scheme on behalf of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 issued import licence No.0550001698 dated 31.12.2009 to respondent No.4 for import of 7000 MT of maize (corn) at concessional rate of customs duty as per Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Notification No.21/2002-Customs dated 01.03.2003 for the year 2009-2010 subject to 'actual user' condition and other usual conditions.

7. On behalf of the petitioner, respondent No.4 submitted another application dated 22.02.2010 to respondent No.1 for obtaining an import licence for import of 6000 MT of maize (corn) under tariff rate quota. On the basis of the said application, import licence bearing No.0550001804 dated 09.04.2010 was issued to respondent No.4 for import of 6000 MT of maize (corn) at concessional rate as per Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Notification No.33/2010-Customs dated 12.03.2010 for the year 2010-11 subject to 'actual user' condition besides other usual conditions.

8. Petitioner has stated that on the strength of the above two licenses, respondent No.4 imported maize (corn) and got it cleared from the customs authorities and stored in its warehouses. Thereafter it issued invoices in favour of the petitioner after adding its profit to the value of the goods imported.

9. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence initiated investigation against the petitioner on the allegation that the 'actual user' condition in the two license was violated. Petitioner has alleged that under coercion it was compelled to pay huge amount of customs duty i.e., Rs.2,