High Court quashes import license conditions, remands for fresh decision.

The High Court set aside and quashed the impugned orders related to the validity of the 'actual user' condition in import licenses. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, emphasizing compliance with procedural directions and addressing the core issue of the 'actual user' condition. No costs were awarded in this decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the 'actual user' condition in the import licenses.
2. Legality of the orders issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, and Director General of Foreign Trade.
3. Entitlement to a refund of customs duty paid under protest.
4. Compliance with procedural directions issued by the High Court in adjudicating the show cause notices.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the 'actual user' condition in the import licenses:
The petitioner challenged the insertion of the 'actual user' condition in the import licenses issued for maize (corn). The petitioner argued that the 'actual user' condition was non-mandatory under the tariff rate quota scheme since 2003, as clarified by public notice No.47 dated 18.05.2011. The respondents, however, contended that the 'actual user' condition was valid until 18.05.2011 and that the petitioner was aware of and had agreed to this condition when applying for the licenses. The court noted the contradictory stands taken by the respondents in different High Courts and emphasized that Union of India and the Director General of Foreign Trade must speak in one voice. The court found that respondent No.1 had failed to adjudicate the validity of the 'actual user' condition, thus violating the directions of the High Court and resulting in non-exercise of jurisdiction.

2. Legality of the orders issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, and Director General of Foreign Trade:
The petitioner sought the quashing of three orders: the order-in-original dated 14.02.2014, the order-in-appeal dated 24.07.2015, and the order in review dated 04.11.2015. The court found that respondent No.1 had refrained from deciding on the legality of the 'actual user' condition, which was central to the case. This failure to adjudicate on all issues, as directed by the High Court, rendered the order-in-original unsustainable. Consequently, the subsequent orders in appeal and review, which upheld the initial order, were also set aside.

3. Entitlement to a refund of customs duty paid under protest:
The petitioner had paid a significant amount of customs duty under protest due to the alleged violation of the 'actual user' condition. The court noted that the issue of refund of customs duty would be subject to the fresh decision to be taken by respondent No.1 upon remand. The court did not delve into this issue in detail, as it was contingent on the outcome of the remanded proceedings.

4. Compliance with procedural directions issued by the High Court in adjudicating the show cause notices:
The High Court had previously directed respondent No.1 to adjudicate the show cause notices on all issues, including the validity of the 'actual user' condition. However, respondent No.1 failed to comply with this direction, leading to a non-exercise of jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the core issue of the 'actual user' condition needed to be addressed, and the failure to do so necessitated the setting aside of the impugned orders and a remand for fresh adjudication.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside and quashed the impugned orders dated 14.02.2014, 24.07.2015, and 04.11.2015. The matter was remanded back to respondent No.1 for a fresh decision on all issues, including the validity of the 'actual user' condition, within three months. The court allowed the writ petition to the extent of remanding the matter for fresh adjudication but did not award any costs.

---