Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to one-time relaxation under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003 for the imported consignment in the absence of an accepted phytosanitary certificate, and whether the rejection of the request for relaxation was justified.
Analysis: Article 14 empowers the competent authority to relax the import conditions in appropriate cases as a one-time exception. The consignment comprised raw cashew nuts intended for processing and re-export, and the goods were perishable. The petitioner sought relaxation and also offered fumigation through an accredited treatment provider. The Court found that the existence of a relaxation mechanism under Article 14 could not be disregarded merely on the ground that a prior objection had been raised, especially when the defect could be addressed and similar relaxation had been granted in comparable situations. The apprehension that relaxation would create a bad precedent was not accepted as a sufficient reason to refuse consideration on merits.
Conclusion: The refusal of relaxation was unjustified. The petitioner was entitled to one-time relaxation, and the impugned order was set aside with a direction to permit fumigation through an accredited treatment provider and proceed in accordance with Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003.