TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court clarifies challenging Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme directly; dismisses intervention applications.</h1> <h3>Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry and others</h3> Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry and others - TMI Issues:1. Petitioner seeking issuance of Duty Free Import Authorization.2. Application for intervention in the writ petition.3. Application for impleadment in the writ petition.Analysis:Issue 1: Petitioner seeking issuance of Duty Free Import AuthorizationThe petitioner had applied for Duty Free Import Authorization under the Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme. The High Court found that the petitioner had completed all formalities for the issuance of the authorization and had previously received 17 such authorizations on similar grounds. The Court noted a strong prima facie case in favor of the petitioner based on the scheme's requirements. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to issue the necessary authorizations to the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner undertakes to pay customs duty if the writ petition fails. The order was specified to govern pending applications only.Issue 2: Application for intervention in the writ petition (Civil Appln. No. 950 of 2018)An applicant sought intervention in the writ petition, claiming that granting the Duty Free Import Authorization to the petitioner, who imports maize for popcorn production, would harm their business of exporting starch powder. The Court held that the applicant was not a proper party to the petition. The Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme, under the Foreign Trade Policy, governs the relationship between the petitioner and the Union of India. The Court cited relevant Supreme Court judgments and dismissed the application, emphasizing that challenging the scheme itself would be the appropriate remedy for the applicant.Issue 3: Application for impleadment in the writ petition (Civil Appln. No. 930 of 2018)Another applicant sought impleadment in the writ petition, arguing that granting the petitioner authorization would adversely affect their business as they also deal with maize products. The Court reiterated that the applicant was not a proper party to the petition, as the dispute primarily concerned the petitioner and the Union of India under the Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme. The Court referred to previous judgments and dismissed the application, stating that challenging the scheme directly would be the suitable course of action for the applicant.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the petitioner's entitlement to Duty Free Import Authorization, rejected applications for intervention and impleadment in the writ petition, and emphasized the need to challenge the scheme itself if aggrieved by its implications on business operations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
