2025 (10) TMI 633

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....PPL. 34481/2025, W.P. (C) 7827/2025 and CM APPL. 34490/2025, W.P. (C) 7830/2025 and CM APPL. 34494/2025, W.P. (C) 7835/2025 and CM APPL. 34506/2025, W.P. (C) 7946/2025 and CM APPL. 34954/2025, W.P. (C) 7952/2025 and CM APPL. 34964/2025, W.P. (C) 7954/2025 and CM APPL. 34967/2025, W.P. (C) 7974/2025 and CM APPL. 35000/2025, W.P. (C) 7975/2025 and CM APPL. 35003/2025, W.P. (C) 7977/2025 and CM APPL. 35008/2025, W.P. (C) 8657/2025 and CM APPL. 37170/2025, W.P. (C) 8663/2025 and CM APPL. 37178/2025, W.P. (C) 8673/2025 and CM APPL. 37191/2025, W.P. (C) 8674/2025 and CM APPL. 37194/2025, W.P. (C) 8693/2025 and CM APPL. 37252/2025, W.P. (C) 8694/2025 and CM APPL. 37255/2025, W.P. (C) 8699/2025 and CM APPL. 37263/2025, W.P. (C) 8707/2025 and CM APPL. 37273/2025, W.P. (C) 8709/2025 and CM APPL. 37277/2025, W.P. (C) 8714/2025 and CM APPL. 37285/2025, W.P. (C) 8733/2025 and CM APPL. 37321/2025, W.P. (C) 8736/2025 and CM APPL. 37340/2025, W.P. (C) 8738/2025 and CM APPL. 37347/2025, W.P. (C) 8742/2025 and CM APPL. 37371/2025, W.P. (C) 8743/2025 and CM APPL. 37375/2025, W.P. (C) 8744/2025 and CM APPL. 37379/2025, W.P. (C) 8745/2025 and CM APPL. 37385/2025, W.P. (C) 8750/2025 and CM APPL. 37397/2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 120, 125, 127 and 128. Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC along with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay and Ms. Aprajita Verma, Advocates for DGFT in item No.103 and 159. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Ms. Jyotsna Vyas, Ms. Ruchita Srivastava and Ms. Amisha P Dash, Advocates for DGFT in Item No.154. Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, CGSC along with Mr. Prarabadh Tiwari, Advocates for DGFT in item no.101. Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC, Mr. Kumar Saurabh, Ms. Minakshi Singh and Mr. Rajnish Sharma, Advs. for UOI in item nos.136, 138 and 139. Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC and Ms. Shreya Lamba, Advs. for respondents in item nos.101 & 135 (through VC) Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar and Mr. Arpan Narwal, Advs. for respondent /DGFT in Item Nos.115, 116, 132, 133, 140 and 148. Mr. Ankur Mittal, CGSC, Mr. Aviraj Pandey, Advs. for DGFT in item no.152. Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC, CBIC, Ms. Navruti Ojha, Ms. Anupam Ojha, Mr. Rishabh Chauhan, Mr. Harish Saini, Advocates for CBIC in Item Nos.114, 115, 116, 119, 121, 123, 124 and 129. Mr. Shoumendu Mukherjee, Sr. Panel Counsel and Mr. Rudra Paliwal, GP, Ms. Megha Sharma, Mr. Aniruddha Ghosh and Mr. Mehul Sachan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(C) 9158/2025, W.P. (C) 9159/2025, W.P. (C) 9180/2025, W.P. (C) 9182/2025, W.P. (C) 9184/2025, W.P. (C) 9197/2025]; and (iv) Short allocation of the petitioners' applications without affording an opportunity of hearing [in W.P. (C) 11339/2025, W.P. (C) 11347/2025, W.P. (C) 11349/2025, W.P. (C) 11386/2025, W.P. (C) 11389/2025, W.P. (C) 11396/2025, W.P. (C) 11400/2025, W.P. (C) 11417/2025, W.P. (C) 11436/2025]. 5. The present petitions have been filed in the backdrop of the CEPA executed between India and UAE on 18.02.2022, wherein, specific tariff commitments were made by both the governments in relation to trade in goods. As per Article 2.4 (2) of the CEPA, the Indian Government agreed to eliminate customs duties on goods originating from UAE in accordance with Annexure 2A thereto. Under the said agreement, a phased tariff concession/relief of 1% was envisaged for Indian gold importers. Accordingly, for the 4th year i.e., FY 2025-26, quantity of gold bullion available for allotment was prescribed at 180 metric tonnes. 6. To operationalize the CEPA obligations, DGFT issued Customs Notification No. 22/2022 dated 30.04.2022 followed by Public Notice No. 06/2015-2020 dat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as correctly pointed out by Mr. Gulati, this review can be deemed a 'blind' review, given that no criteria were specified in the said Minutes with respect to the potential allocation. Furthermore, the public notice referred to by the Respondents only addresses cases where TRQ utilization, in the review process, is ≤ 25%, without providing further details regarding other quantities of utilisation. Moreover, this public notice pertains to FY 2023-24, and there is no such public notice informing the Petitioners or the general public about such a criteria for FY 2024-25. 7. That being said, the Court understands that the intent behind the review exercise is to ensure that the TRQ allocations are specifically adhered to. Therefore, the Respondents' objective in conducting the review appears to be solely to ensure that the TRQ imports under the India-UAE CEPA are fully met. However, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, since the review decision was made without affording the Petitioners an opportunity to be heard, and Ms. Shiva Lakshmi has also indicated that the Petitioners should have first approached the DGFT with their concerns, the Court is of the opinion that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., which indicates growing awareness and acceptance, it may now be an opportune time to introduce qualitative parameters for TRQ allocation in a phased manner. ii. The allocations are to be made to ensure proper utilization of the TRQ allocated so that the benefits of the arrangements are transmitted to the exporters, manufacturers as well as end consumers in the domestic market. iii. Applicants having industrial/manufacturing use of the gold imported under TRQs need to be prioritised. Manufacturers and traders with a considerable size of business in the last three years to be given an opportunity. iv. The Committee noted that a broader allocation across a high number of applicants could potentially result in reduced individual entitlements, which may contribute to sectoral imbalances and possible under-utilisation. It was observed that, in the previous year, a significant number of TRQ holders with baseline quantities did not effectuate any imports. At the same time, an approach that confines allocations solely to existing authorisation holders may not adequately reflect capacities and new entrants with demonstrable performance. The Committee further reco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pted the following formulations for allocation: a. Only one application has been considered per applicant (i.e., per Importer Exporter Code - IEC). b. Notwithstanding subsequent conditionalities, the allocation shall not exceed the quantity applied for by the applicant. c. Applicants have been allocated quotas based on multiple criteria, with the maximum allocation arrived at among the applicable criteria being adopted. The criteria and corresponding allocations are as under: Sr. No. Criterion of Allocation Kg) Allocation (in 1 Utilized more than 2500 Kg in the last year 2500 2 Utilized more than 2000 Kg but less than 2500 Kg in the last year 2000 3 Utilized more than 1500 Kg but less than 2000 Kg in the last year 1500 4 Utilized more than 1000 Kg but less than 1500 Kg in the last year 1000 5 Utilized more than 750 Kg but less than 1000 Kg in the last year 750 6 Utilized more than 500 Kg but less than 750 Kg in the last year 500 7 Utilized more than 250 Kg but less than 500 Kg in the last year 250 8 Utilized more than 150 Kg but less than 250 Kg in the last year 150 9 Q....