2015 (4) TMI 600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 2. Under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') the petitioners had submitted an application in form 'K' for grant of No Objection Certificate (NoC) for import of 79.2 metric tonnes of MEK. The said application dated 27.7.2013 was submitted to the Narcotics Commissioner, Gwalior on 07.08.2013. The goods i.e. MEK in 480 drums were dispatched from Taiwan on 27.07.2013 by vessel Zimdjibouti with the port of destination shown as Nhava Sheva Port India. The ship arrived at Nhava Sheva Port, Thane, Navi Mumbai on 12.08.2013. At the request of the petitioners the Customs authorities permitted lodgment of the goods in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he writ petition remained pending a letter dated 14.03.2014 from the Central Bureau of Narcotics was received by the petitioner communicating the following decision: "2. In this context, it is to inform you that you have imported 79.20 MT Methyl Ethyl Ketone into India without a No Objection Certificate from the Narcotics Commissioner. This is in violation of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013. 3. Hence No Objection Certificate for import of 79.20 MT Methyl Ethyl Ketone from Taiwan against your letter dated 18/10/2013, received in this office on 30/10/2013 cannot be issued as the said material was already imported into India by your firm on 12/08/2013." 3. The petitioner sou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o show that there is a prior commitment of availability of the controlled substance for import into India. It is further urged that though the respondents were made aware of the fact that the goods have landed in the port of destination within India on 12.08.2013 and at that point of time the application for NoC was still under consideration, the respondents did not take any coercive action and instead continued to process the application filed by the petitioners for grant of NoC. Shri Nariman has also urged that the respondents had seized the goods on 17.01.2014 at which point of time no decision on the grant or refusal of NoC had been made. The rejection/refusal came subsequently i.e. on 14.03.2014. According to Shri Nariman, the goods ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oC was yet to be finalized is contrary to the provisions of the NDPS Act read with the Regulations in force; Whether the rejection of the application for grant of NOC on 14th March, 2014 was a fait accompli in view of the seizure already made and therefore an unacceptable exercise of State power; are the multi faceted issues that arise for consideration in the present case. 8. Should we answer the questions indicated above. Though we feel tempted we must refrain. Legal issues need not, nay, should not be answered merely because they have arisen in a given case. The cognate facts must not be ignored. In the present case, as found by the High Court, a FIR in respect of the import made by the petitioners without grant of the NOC had been....