Court grants urgent order for import of insecticides/pesticides for non-insecticide use

The court admitted the Petition seeking an urgent ad-interim order related to the import of insecticides/pesticides products for noninsecticide use. The Petitioner undertook to apply for an import permit, which was accepted by the court. Upon the production of the application, the Respondents agreed to clear the consignment without prejudice to their rights. The court allowed the clearance and admitted the Petition to consider the larger controversy, setting a date for interim relief while clarifying that the order would not prejudice the rights of either party.

---

---

Issues:
1. Urgent ad-interim order sought by the Petitioner.
2. Reliance on instructions from Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee.
3. Import of insecticides/pesticides products for noninsecticide use.
4. Requirement of Registration Certificate or import permit.
5. Undertaking by the Petitioner for issuance of an import permit.
6. Clearance of consignment upon application for import permit.
7. Admission of the Petition to consider the larger controversy.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner, represented by Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee, Senior Advocate, sought an urgent ad-interim order, which was opposed by Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, representing the Respondent. An affidavit-in-reply was tendered by Mr. Jetly, referring to instructions from the Central Insecticides Board, the 380th meeting minutes of the Registration Committee, a Notification from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, and Section 38 of the Insecticide Act 1968.

2. The affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs highlighted the instructions dated 22 June 2011 and recent communications from the Committee, emphasizing that importing insecticides/pesticides products for noninsecticide use based on an end-use bond is not permitted. The Customs received written instructions from the committee on 13 March 2018, stating that no consignment of such nature will be cleared without a Registration Certificate or import permit.

3. Mr. Jetly contended that the Petitioner's statement regarding furnishing a bond will not suffice, and stressed the necessity of a Registration Certificate or import permit. In response, Mr. Rustomjee assured the court that the Petitioner would apply for an import permit within a week, which was accepted as an undertaking by the court.

4. Upon the production of the application for the import permit, the Respondents agreed to allow clearance of the consignment, with such clearance being without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The court, deeming it fit, admitted the Petition to delve into the larger controversy, setting a date for interim relief and clarifying that the order would operate without prejudice to the rights of both parties.

---