Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.
M/s. Rain CII Carbon (Vizag) Limited and Another - Petitioners
Versus
Office of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Hyderabad and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.7538 of 2025
Decided On : 02-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the petitioners' identity and operations. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. details of the application processes for advance authorizations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. response from petitioners to deficiency letter. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. writ petition filed against rejection order. (Para 12) |
| 5. legal contestation against authority's jurisdiction. (Para 13) |
| 6. respondents' counter about availability of alternative remedies. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. argument regarding nature of deemed exports. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. clarification of definitions related to deemed exports. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. observations regarding nature of rejection. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 10. unpacking the implications of policy interpretation. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 11. clarification of the procedural context regarding authorizations. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 12. further assertions regarding the petitioners' legal standing. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 13. discussion on previous authorizations granted. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 14. commercial implications of the decisions. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 15. argument regarding the nature of losses incurred. (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 16. court's analysis of implications from the supreme court's orders. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 17. court's commentary on the decisions made by dgft. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 18. recommendations for policy compliance and further consideration. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 19. finality of review process and implications of prior authorizations. (Para 68 , 69) |
| 20. final judgment and directions for remittance to authorities. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 21. conclusion and order of dismissal without costs. (Para 75 , 76 , 77) |
ORDER :
(N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.)
This writ petition is filed with the following prayer :
“(i) Declaring the action of Respondent No.1/Regional Authority, Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Hyderabad in issuing the Rejection Letter dated 05.02.2025 bearing File No. 09AX04000927AM25 and Deficiency Letter dated 15.01.2025 bearing File No. 09AX04000927AM25 as being arbitrary, illegal besides being violative of the Petitioners' rights under Articles 14, 19 and 300 of the Constitution of India, the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation Act), 1992, Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, DGFT Notification 68/2023 dated 07.03.2024, CAQM Order dated 15.02.2024 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 10.10.2023 in W.P. (C) No.13029/1985, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, and consequently quash the Rejection Letter dated 05.02.2025 bearing File No.09AX04000927AM25 and Deficiency Letter dated 15.01.2025 bearing File No. 09AX04000927AM25; and
(ii) Declare that raw pet coke (RPC) imports by the Petitioners for supply of calcined pet coke (CPC) to SEZ units in India are entitled to the grant of Advance Authorisation under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023; and
(iii) Direct the Respondents to grant Advance Authorisation to the Petitioners against their Application for Grant of Advance Authorisation dated 31.12.2024 bearing File No. 09AX04000927AM25; and
(iv) Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioners to supply CPC to SEZ units in India in terms of the order dated 15.02.2024 issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas read with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 10.10.2023 in W.P. (C) No.13029/1985, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India; and
(v) In the alternative and without prejudice to the above prayers, declare the actions of the Respondents in issuing the DGFT Notification No.68/2023 dated 07.03.2024, if and insofar as it purports to prohibit the supply of CPC by domestic calciners to SEZ units as being illegal arbitrary, illegal besides being violative of the Petitioners' rights under Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India; and consequently quash the DGFT Notification No.68/2023 dated 07.03.2024, if and insofar as it purports to prohibit the supply of CPC by domestic calciners to SEZ units; and
(vi) Pass su
The court affirmed entitlement to advance authorisation under the Foreign Trade Policy for deemed exports to SEZ units, emphasizing the need for administrative decisions to align with established jud....
The doctrine of forum conveniens limits jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing that a court should not entertain cases where a more appropriate forum exists, regardless of where a part of the ca....
Point of law: Hon’ble Supreme Court had no occasion to consider import to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It is also submitted by him that the representations were mechanically rejected without even a....
The court held that the allocation of RPC to M/s Sanvira Industries was valid because the Supreme Court orders did not forbid M/s Sanvira Industries from showing that its Production Capacity as on 09....
Point of Law : Import and Export of Goods - in order to facilitate international trade, DGFT consults various Export Promotion Councils as well as Trade and Industry bodies from time to time.
Allocation of quantities of Raw Pet-Coke (RPC) – Consent issued by concerned SPCB or PCC had to clearly state what was capacity or quantity permitted for import by concerned unit.
The authority of the DGFT in determining fulfillment of export obligations prevails over Customs demands, which cannot contradict DGFT’s issued certificates.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
