https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770672 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770672 Rejection of the Petitioners application for Advance Authorisation (AA) for import of Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) intended for manufacture and supply of Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units - deemed exports or not - entitlement to Advance Authorisation under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 - applicability of DGFT Notification No.68/2023 dt.07.03.02024, the revised policy condition 06(b)(iii) import of RPC by on Actual use basis or not - HELD THAT:- The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Others [ 2018 (11) TMI 1352 - SUPREME COURT ] while hearing interlocutory applications, wherein the Union of India through the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change filed and affidavit on 08th October, 2018 regarding use of calcined pet coke (CPC) in Aluminium Industry, held that the calcined pet coke (CPC) (domestic as well as imported) can be used as raw-material for anode making in the Aluminium Industry with the revised BIS specifications. In the said order, the Hon ble Supreme Court, based on the report given by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) dated 04.10.2018 observed that as per the BIS guidelines, calciners are permitted to use high sulphur containing raw petroleum coke for making CPC having sulphur content less than 3.5%. While recording the statement of the learned Amicus Curiae the view expressed by the CPCB are also acceptable to EPCA and accordingly disposed of the applications observing that the raw pet coke (domestic and imported) can be used as a feedstock for producing calcined pet coke. In the said order, the applications filed by the petitioner herein seeking certain directions, while considering the affidavit dated 23.08.2018 stating that 11 contracts have been entered into on or before 26.07.2018 for the import of Anode grade raw pet coke. It is pertinent to note that in the Notification No.68/2023, dated 07.03.2024 the authorisation for restricted imports, condition No.3 that Import of RPC by Calciners shall be on Actual User basis and shall not be transferred to any other unit(s) including SEZ unit(s). Export of CPC by Calciners shall not be permitted is contrary to the orders passed by the CAQM, dated 15.02.2024 and also to Clause VI of the Notification dated 07.03.2024 and the Minutes of the Meeting held on 27.03.2024 for allocation for import of raw petroleum coke for CPC manufacturing and Calcined Petroleum Coke for Aluminium Industry for the Financial Year 2024-25. In view of the facts that the respondents earlier permitted the petitioner to export the CPC manufactured by it to SEZ Units and granted advance authorisations to the petitioners on 14.05.2024, 13.08.2024 and 28.10.2024, and in view of the preceding analysis there is no justification in issuing DGFT Notification No.68/2023 dated 07.03.2024 to the extent of revising the policy conditions i.e. 06(b)(iii) import of RPC by calciners and the said revised policy is not in consonance to the CAQM order dated 15.02.2024 passed in pursuance to the Hon ble Supreme Court order in M.C. Mehta and the Minutes of the Meeting held on 27.03.2024, which is again in consonance to interpretation of policy under Chapter-II of General Provisions Regarding Imports and Exports of Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. In the light of the orders passed by the CAQM dated 15.02.2024, pursuant to the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta in W.P. (Civil) No.13029 of 1985 and the Minutes of the Meeting held on 27.03.2024 the Deficiency Letter dated 15.02.2024 is contrary to the CAQM Order and the DGFT Notification which implements the CAQM Order. The petitioner has efficacious remedy of review under Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation Act), 1992. The impugned rejection letter dated 05.02.2025 bearing File No.09AX04000927AM25 and the Deficiency Letter dated 15.01.2024 bearing File No.09AX04000927AM25 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents authority for fresh consideration with respect to the petitioner s case to the extent of granting entitlement to advance authorisation under Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. The DGFT shall give personal hearing for petitioners grievance. Conclusion - The rejection letter dated 05.02.2025 is not a reasoned order as it fails to consider the explanation given by the Petitioners and the express provisions of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) Order dated 15.02.2024 which permits deemed exports to SEZ units. The Petitioners are entitled to a fresh consideration of their application for Advance Authorisation with a personal hearing, and pending such consideration, they are permitted to supply CPC to the Vedanta SEZ unit. Petition disposed off. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530