Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Hygenic Foods Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners filed a Memo seeking permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. The Court granted permission for the withdrawal. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the legality or arbitrariness of the notification or the refusal to permit exports. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn, with no costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Hygenic Foods Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the notification issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on September 8, 2022, which banned the export of broken rice under HS Code 1006 40 00, effective from September 9, 2022. The petitioner argued that this action, and the subsequent refusal by respondents 1 and 2 to permit the export of broken rice that was contractually committed before the ban, was arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner sought to export 20,000 MT of 100% broken rice under existing purchase and sale agreements with Green Point Private Limited, Singapore, entered into between April 1, 2022, and September 30, 2022. The respondents included the Union of India, the Director General of Foreign Trade, and various customs and GST authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in issuing notification No. 31/2015-2020 dated September 8, 2022, banning the export of broken rice under HS Code 1006 40 00 with effect from September 9, 2022, is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, and violative of the principles of natural justice and constitutional rights, particularly concerning pre-existing contractual obligations. 2. Whether the respondents' refusal to permit the export of broken rice, contractually committed before the imposition of the ban, is contrary to law. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the ban was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice and constitutional rights. They contended that the respondents' refusal to allow the export of broken rice, for which contracts were already in place before the ban, was unlawful. The petitioner sought to enforce their contractual obligations to export 20,000 MT of broken rice. Revenue/State's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondents regarding the merits of the petitioner's claims.