TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P(C).10324/2008, WP(C).7379/2008, WP(C).8479/2009, WP(C).35133/2007, WP(C).5990/2009, WP(C).29465/2009, WP(C).5481/2009, WP(C).6747/2009, WP(C).5135/2009, WP(C).9629/2008, WP(C).257/2009, WP(C).36302/2008, WP(C).36296/2008, WP(C).34054/2008, WP(C).33417/2008, WP(C).29039/2008, WP(C).26671/2008, WP(C).20318/2008, WP(C).37012/2007, WP(C).34282/2007, WP(C).9624/2007, WP(C).23273/2008 & WP(C).31806/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.257 of 2009, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26359/2010, WP(C).5822/2009, WP(C).1065/2009, WP(C).10324/2008, WP(C).7379/2008, WP(C).8479/2009, WP(C).35133/2007, WP(C).5990/2009, WP(C).29465/2009, WP(C).5481/2009, WP(C).6747/2009, WP(C).5135/2009, WP(C).9629/2008, WP(C).243/2009, WP(C).36302/2008, WP(C).36296/2008, WP(C).34054/2008, WP(C).33417/2008, WP(C).29039/2008, WP(C).26671/2008, WP(C).20318/2008, WP(C).37012/2007, WP(C).34282/2007, WP(C).9624/2007, WP(C).23273/2008 & WP(C).31806/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.1065 of 2009, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26359/2010, WP(C).5822/2009, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....EN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26359/2010, WP(C).5822/2009, WP(C).1065/2009, WP(C).10324/2008, WP(C).7379/2008, WP(C).8479/2009, WP(C).35133/2007, WP(C).29465/2009, WP(C).5481/2009, WP(C).6747/2009, WP(C).5135/2009, WP(C).9629/2008, WP(C).257/2009, WP(C).243/2009, WP(C).36302/2008, WP(C).36296/2008, WP(C).34054/2008, WP(C).33417/2008, WP(C).29039/2008, WP(C).26671/2008, WP(C).20318/2008, WP(C).37012/2007, WP(C).34282/2007, WP(C).9624/2007, WP(C).23273/2008 & WP(C).31806/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:, WP(C).No.6747 of 2009, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26359/2010, WP(C).5822/2009, WP(C).1065/2009, WP(C).10324/2008, WP(C).7379/2008, WP(C).8479/2009, WP(C).35133/2007, WP(C).5990/2009, WP(C).29465/2009, WP(C).5481/2009, WP(C).5135/2009, WP(C).9629/2008, WP(C).257/2009, WP(C).243/2009, WP(C).36302/2008, WP(C).36296/2008, WP(C).34054/2008, WP(C).33417/2008, WP(C).29039/2008, WP(C).26671/2008, WP(C).20318/2008, WP(C).37012/2007, WP(C).34282/2007, WP(C).9624/2007, WP(C).23273/2008 & WP(C).31806/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:, WP(C).No.7379 of 2008, THIS WRIT PETITI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C).31806/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:, WP(C).No.20318 of 2008, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26359/2010, WP(C).5822/2009, WP(C).1065/2009, WP(C).10324/2008, WP(C).7379/2008, WP(C).8479/2009, WP(C).35133/2007, WP(C).5990/2009, WP(C).29465/2009, WP(C).5481/2009, WP(C).6747/2009, WP(C).5135/2009, WP(C).9629/2008, WP(C).257/2009, WP(C).243/2009, WP(C).36302/2008, WP(C).36296/2008, WP(C).34054/2008, WP(C).33417/2008, WP(C).29039/2008, WP(C).26671/2008, WP(C).37012/2007, WP(C).34282/2007, WP(C).9624/2007, WP(C).23273/2008 & WP(C).31806/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:, WP(C).No.26359 of 2010, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).5822/2009, WP(C).1065/2009, WP(C).10324/2008, WP(C).7379/2008, WP(C).8479/2009, WP(C).35133/2007, WP(C).5990/2009, WP(C).29465/2009, WP(C).5481/2009, WP(C).6747/2009, WP(C).5135/2009, WP(C).9629/2008, WP(C).257/2009, WP(C).243/2009, WP(C).36302/2008, WP(C).36296/2008, WP(C).34054/2008, WP(C).33417/2008, WP(C).29039/2008, WP(C).26671/2008, WP(C).20318/2008, WP(C).37012/2007, WP(C).34282/2007, WP(C).9624/2007, WP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71/2008, WP(C).20318/2008, WP(C).37012/2007, WP(C).34282/2007, WP(C).9624/2007, WP(C).23273/2008 & WP(C).31806/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.34054 of 2008, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26359/2010, WP(C).5822/2009, WP(C).1065/2009, WP(C).10324/2008, WP(C).7379/2008, WP(C).8479/2009, WP(C).35133/2007, WP(C).5990/2009, WP(C).29465/2009, WP(C).5481/2009, WP(C).6747/2009, WP(C).5135/2009, WP(C).9629/2008, WP(C).257/2009, WP(C).243/2009, WP(C).36302/2008, WP(C).36296/2008, WP(C).33417/2008, WP(C).29039/2008, WP(C).26671/2008, WP(C).20318/2008, WP(C).37012/2007, WP(C).34282/2007, WP(C).9624/2007, WP(C).23273/2008 & WP(C).31806/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.34282 of 2007, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26359/2010, WP(C).5822/2009, WP(C).1065/2009, WP(C).10324/2008, WP(C).7379/2008, WP(C).8479/2009, WP(C).35133/2007, WP(C).5990/2009, WP(C).29465/2009, WP(C).5481/2009, WP(C).6747/2009, WP(C).5135/2009, WP(C).9629/2008, WP(C).257/2009, WP(C).243/2009, WP(C).36302/2008, WP(C).36296/2008, WP(C).34054/2008, WP(C).334....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6296/2008, WP(C).34054/2008, WP(C).33417/2008, WP(C).29039/2008, WP(C).26671/2008, WP(C).20318/2008, WP(C).34282/2007, WP(C).9624/2007, WP(C).23273/2008 & WP(C).31806/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: FIRDOUSE INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY, MUSTAFA TRADERS, KEVEEYEM COMPANY SUPARIWALA (P) LTD., K.V. MOHAMMED, NUT MERCHANT AND COMMISSION AGENT, PARSOTAM DAS JAIN, EBRAHIM COMPANY, M/S.RADHAKRISHNA TRADING COMPANY, AL MARWA TRADERS, SHRI SIV ENTERPRISES, GLOBAL INDUSTRIES, V M/S. OSCAR ENTERPRISES, M/S. YAS INTERNATIONAL, SHREE TRADERS, M/S. G.T.SPICES, M/S. V.K. TRADERS, M/S.INTEGRAL ASSOCIATES, M/S.SUREKSHA ENTERPRISES, UJJWAL TRADERS, M/S. INTEGRAL ASSOCIATES, KAY KAY ENTERPRISES, ATLANTIC CORPORATION, M/S. ANSAR ENTERPRISES, HAL INTERNATIONAL, LANTERN ENTERPRISES, M/S.KAFAT TRADING COMPANY, M/S. GENERAL AGENCIES, M/S.VALLALAR IMPEX, WADHWANI TRADING COMMODITIES (P) LTD., M/S. HARIPRIYA TRADERS The Honourable Mr. Justice Shaji P. Chaly BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN BY ADVS. R1 & R2 - SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC R3 - SRI. SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS . BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN SMT.K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY SMT.T.P.LEKSHMI VARMA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....common judgment. 4. So far as Port restrictions are concerned, by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court, the betel nuts were being imported by the petitioners through other Ports after executing bond in favour of the respondents. Later, the notifications with respect to the Port restrictions were withdrawn, and therefore, the said issue is not surviving in order to consider the writ petitions on its merits. Even so, learned counsel for the petitioners apprehends that since bonds were executed for the release of betel nuts imported, the likelihood of imposition of other penalties by the Government cannot be brushed aside. 5. However, in my considered view, since during the prevalence of the notifications in regard to Port restrictions, betel nuts were imported through various Ports on the basis of interim orders passed by this Court, and since the notifications were later withdrawn, I do not think it is proper on the part of the respondents to impose any penalty on the petitioners on that ground. Therefore, there will be a direction to regularize the imports carried out by the petitioners by securing interim orders from this Court on execution of bonds, and the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l files produced relating to the notifications issued. 9. The paramount contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that, it was on the basis of representations submitted by CAMPCO alone, the notifications were issued and there is no element of public interest involved in issuing the notifications, and therefore, the Policy enunciated by the Government to have the Port restrictions and minimum import price is totally arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel has taken me through the correspondences contained in the original files in order to substantiate the same. However, on going through the entire files, it is clear that not only CAMPCO but also Members of Parliament, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karnataka, Minister for Large and Medium Industries, Karnataka Government and other Co-operative Societies have filed various representations with respect to the illegalities and malpractices taking place in the import of betel nuts from Nepal and Bhutan by the Indian traders in North India, without paying any tax or import duty. It is quite clear from the correspondences made by and between the then Union Ministers, of Industries and Commerce, and the Finance tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th, and that there are no patent arbitrariness, illegality or malafides in evaluating the policy, then it is not proper or legal on the part of this Court to interfere with the policy decision taken by the Government. 12. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, Notification No.15 (RE2008)/2004-2009 dated 04.06.2008 fixing a floor price of Rs.35/- per kg. for import of betel nuts was issued by the Union Government in larger public interest, and the challenge made by the petitioners against the said notification cannot be sustained under law. It is also 2008) /2004-2009 dated 04.06.2008 fixing a floor price of Rs.35/- per kg. for import of betel nuts was issued by the Union Government in larger public interest, and the challenge made by the petitioners against the said notification cannot be sustained under law. It is also clear that the notification was part of 2004-2009 Foreign Trade Policy, which has no relevance whatsoever today. But the notification reflects the policy decision of the Government, and once it is found so, I have no reason to think otherwise than that the policy is immune from judicial review. 13. Learned Central Government Counsel h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s' [2018 (3) KHC 411 : 2018 (3) KLT 71], has held as follows in paragraphs 50 to 56: "50. (c) Policy Preferences - Judicial Interference: Marine Fins has cited numerous justifications why there should not have been a total ban, and what else could have been a better and more viable alternatives. Possibilities galore, we agree. But can we substitute our view to that of the Government, merely because our view, too, is plausible or possible? 51. First, we must acknowledge that the Ext.P3 notification emerges from expert deliberations. As is often held, the courts will not ordinarily interfere in the Government's policy matters, since these policy matters are taken based on expert knowledge. Besides, courts are usually not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision. True, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation (2001 (3) KLT OnLine 1002 (SC) = (2001) 8 SCC 491) observes: Policy matters, nevertheless, are not beyond the bounds of the judicial scrutiny; there is no judicial abdication in policy matters. The courts can still scrutinize whether the Government has formulated the policy remembering all the facts and wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (1989 (2) KLT OnLine 1008 (SC) = (1989) 3 SCR 19) Judicial enquiry is confined to whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions, or whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens, or whether it is opposed to the Constitutional provisions- cautions the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash (2006 (1) KLT SN 41 (C.No.56) SC = AIR 2006 SC 661). Even if the Government's decision does not appear to be agreeable to the Court, it cannot interfere. 56. The Court should constantly remind itself that "the problems of Government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations, illogical it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is the best is not always discernible, the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of Government are not subject to our judicial review. (Metropolis Theatre Company v. City of Chicago (1912) 57 L Ed 730, as quoted in Gopinath Dash)". Thus it is canvassed, even if the public interest is not reflected in the notification, if it is discernible from the files produced or from the counter affidavi....