2021 (6) TMI 265 - HC - Customs

Judgment: Writ Petition Granted for Relaxation Request under Plant Quarantine Order

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the rejection of the relaxation request under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine Order, 2003, and ... One time relaxation of conditions of import permit and phytosanitary certificate - phytosanitary certificate mandatory for import - fumigation by an accredited treatment provider - remittal for compliance and release in lieu of deportation - perishable consignment and public interest in release over deportationOne time relaxation of conditions of import permit and phytosanitary certificate - phytosanitary certificate mandatory for import - Validity of rejection of the petitioner's claim for one-time relaxation under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import Into India) Order, 2003 - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Article 14 permits the Central Government or delegated officers to grant a one-time relaxation of import permit and phytosanitary certificate requirements in public interest, and that such a power had been exercised in comparable situations. The petitioner produced a phytosanitary certificate and offered fumigation through an accredited treatment provider; the certificate and supporting documentary correlations were held to rebut the sole basis for deportation. The first respondent's refusal on the ground that granting relaxation would create a bad precedent and that mandatory requirements must be strictly enforced was not found to be justified in the circumstances of this perishable consignment intended for processing and re-export. Applying Article 14 and recognising past relaxations and the offer of in-India accredited fumigation, the Court concluded that the petitioner's request for one-time relaxation should have been considered favourably rather than resulting in deportation. [Paras 11, 12, 13]Impugned rejection of the claim for one-time relaxation set aside and the merits held in favour of permitting relief under Article 14.Fumigation by an accredited treatment provider - remittal for fumigation and release - Direction to remand the matter for fumigation and release of the consignment as a one-time relaxation under Article 14 - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that, in view of the availability of Article 14 relief, the perishable nature of the consignment, the petitioner's offer to engage an accredited treatment provider and to bear expenses, and in order to avoid useless deportation, the matter be remitted to the first respondent to permit fumigation through an accredited treatment provider as a one-time relaxation. The Court mandated that the first respondent implement the relaxation and carry out fumigation and consequent release within a stipulated timeframe. [Paras 14]Matter remitted to the first respondent with a direction to fumigate the goods through an accredited treatment provider and grant one-time relaxation under Article 14 within four weeks.Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed; order dated 30.03.2021 set aside and the matter remitted to the first respondent to grant one-time relaxation under Article 14 and fumigate the consignment through an accredited treatment provider within four weeks; no costs. Issues:1. Rejection of phytosanitary certificate for imported cashew nuts.2. Appeal against deportation order and delay in appellate authority's decision.3. Rejection of relaxation request under Article 14 of Plant Quarantine Order, 2003.Issue 1: Rejection of Phytosanitary CertificateThe petitioner, engaged in importing cashew nuts, faced objections on the phytosanitary certificate issued for a consignment due to errors in botanical name and vessel details. Despite submitting revised certificates, the first respondent rejected them as fake, leading to a deportation order. The petitioner appealed, seeking early disposal, but faced delays. The Court directed the second respondent to consider the relaxation request under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine Order, 2003, and challenge the rejection if needed.Issue 2: Appeal Against Deportation OrderThe petitioner's appeal against the deportation order was dismissed by the appellate authority, citing serious environmental concerns due to non-compliance with phytosanitary requirements. Subsequent writ petitions led to directions for the second respondent to consider the relaxation request. However, the first respondent rejected the request, fearing wrong precedent and environmental risks. The petitioner argued for relaxation under Article 14, emphasizing the perishable nature of the goods and willingness to meet fumigation requirements.Issue 3: Rejection of Relaxation RequestThe first respondent rejected the relaxation request under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine Order, 2003, despite past relaxations by the Government for similar cases. The petitioner offered fumigation through an accredited provider and bore expenses, but the request was denied, citing potential environmental risks and setting a wrong precedent. The Court, after considering submissions, allowed the writ petition, setting aside the rejection and remitting the matter for fumigation within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the need for one-time relaxation under Article 14.This detailed analysis covers the issues of rejection of the phytosanitary certificate, the appeal against the deportation order, and the rejection of the relaxation request, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment and the legal arguments presented by the parties involved.