JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Akula Venu, appellant-in-person and Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. We have also heard Mr. P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. T. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 7.

2. This intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 16349 of 2011 filed by the appellant as the petitioner.

3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the public notice No. 47(RE-2010)/2009-2014 dated 18.05.2011 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade as illegal and arbitrary and sought for quashing of the same.

4. Case of the appellant as pleaded in the writ affidavit is that it is a proprietary concern engaged in trading in agricultural produce, particularly buying and selling of popcorn/maize. Proprietor also claims to be an agriculturist himself engaged in the cultivation of popcorn. It was pleaded that popcorn is widely grown in Karnataka and parts of Andhra Pradesh. Though maize as an agricultural produce is grown in India, one of its varieties i.e. popcorn is imported from United States of America and Argentina under the Customs Act, 1962 and under the Foreign Trade Policy framed in terms of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Appellant has acknowledged that the popcorn imported from the above two countries are of better quality and cheaper in value than the one which is domestically grown. However, to ensure that domestic producers of popcorn and the market is not harmed, Government of India under the Foreign Trade Policy has always permitted import of popcorn by insisting on actual user condition and not for the purpose of trading. As per commitment of the Government of India under the World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations, four agricultural products were negotiated. India being a signatory is committed to allow Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) for four items at concessional rate of customs duty. These are:

“1. Skimmed and whole milk powder. Milk food for babies etc. (Tariff Code No. 0402.10 or 0402.21)

2. Maize (Corn) - other (Tariff Code No. 1005.90)

3. Rape; Colza, Canola or Mustard Oil, other (Refined) (Tariff Code No. 1514.19 and 1514.99)

4. Crude Sunflower Seed or Safflower Oil or Fractions thereof (Tariff Code No. 1512.11).”

5. It is stated that in view of such commitment given to WTO, Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, Department of Revenue had issued Notification No. 21/2002- Customs dated 01.03.2002 notifying concessional rate of duty for the above four items under TRQ subject to issuance of necessary allocation certificate by the Exim Facilitation Committee. Accordingly, Director General of Foreign Trade had issued Public Notice No. 38/2002-2007 dated 04.10.2002 laying down the procedure for importing various items under TRQ. As per the aforesaid procedure, state trading enterprises were allowed to import the above commodities only on behalf of actual users.

6. According to the appellant, the said procedure duly protected the domestic producers of popcorn as the imported popcorn was not available for trading under the concessional rate of customs duty. However, upsetting the said procedure, Director General of Foreign Trade issued the impugned public notice dated 18.05.2011 amending the procedure of TRQ scheme. As per the said public notice under the TRQ scheme, import of maize (corn) is allowed duty free with effect from the date of the impugned public notice; besides, the actual user condition would not be mandatory for import of all items under the TRQ scheme.

7. This came to be challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge by filing W.P. No. 16349 of 2011.