M/S. Rain Ch Carbon (Vizag) LTD vs. Office Of The Additional Director General Of Foreign Trade

The Petilioner No. I is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. On account of its export volumes, tllE petitioner's company had been granted accreditation as a 2

The Petitioner No.2 holds 425 shares of Rain Industries Limited.

Respondent No. 1, Olfice of the Additional Director Gcneral of Foreign Trade, Hyderabad Regional Authority, (Additional DGFT) ("Regional Authority"), is inter alia responsible for administering the Advance Authorisation scheme under the Forcign Trade Policy (hereinafter relerred [o as "the F"lP") for Hyderabad and Vishakhapat nam.

The Respondent No.2, Directorate General ol Foreign Trade ( DGFT"), is the ofhce through which the Central Gove rnment exercises its powers of regulation of foreign trade under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (,,FTDR Act',) and the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 (F"lP"). f $' \ (

Respondent No.3, Union of India, Department of Commerce through the Ministry of Commcrce and Industry is responsible lor development and implementation of foreign trade policies.

The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, as btated in the affidavit, is that they are India's lcading manufacturcr and exporter of anode- grade CPC and are depenclcnt on imported RPC required for the manulacture of anode gradc CPC. The requisite quantity of RPC is not available in India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the import of RPC by calciners up to 1.4 MMT per annum vide order dated 09.10.2018. Thereafter, RPC import quota was periodically allocated by the DGFT to calciners including the Petilioners' DTA Unit every financial year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.10.2023 in the PIL Proceedings, directed the Commission for tur Quality Management (CAQM) to take a fresh look into all issues pertaining to pctroleum cokc, afl-er considering the pleas of various persons including the Pclitioners. Pursuant to the said directions, the CAQM issued an order inter alia permitting the import of a total of 1.9 MMT RPC by CPC manufacturers for hnancial year 2024-25 (higher than permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 09.1O.2018). Pertinently, the CAQM Order specifically permitted exports by domestic calcining units to SEZ Units. The relevant paragraph of the CAQM Order is extracted hcrein below for reference: #,

In compliance with the CAQM Order, the DGFT amended the Import Policy condition permitting the import of RpC subject to the terms and conditions of the CAQM Order. The relevant clauses of the DGFT Notihcation are extracted below: 5 c \ "Revised Policy Condition: Total import of 1.9 Million MTs of Raw Pctroleum Cokc (RPC) for manufacturing Calcined Petroleum Cokc (CPC) and 0.5 Million MTs ot CpC for Aluminium Industry respectively shall be permissible during 2024-25, and 1.9 Mi.llion MTs of RPC for malufucturing CpC malufacturing and 0.8 Million MTs of CpC for Aluminium Inciustrv

As per the Notification No.6812023 dated O7.03.2024 issued by the DGFT, the Petitioners have applied for and reccived Advance Authorisation fhereinafter referrcd to as 'the AA') on 14 .O5.2024 , 13.Oa.2024 and 28.70.2024 against the import of 81,0OO MT, 55,500 MT and 35,OOO MT of RPC for the manufacture and export of 54,000 MT, 37,OOO MT and 23,333 MT of CPC respectively to the Vedanta SEZ. Thereafter, the petitioners made their Fourth application for Advance Authorisation on 37.12.2024 for import of 54,9OO MT of RPC for manufacture and export of 36,60O MT of CPC to the Vedanta StrZ I I

As aforesaid, the CAQM Order expressly permits exports by domeslic calciners to SEZ units. Accordingly, the petitioners re sponded to the Deliciency Letter on 20.Ol .,2025 The relevant porfion of the Petitioner's response da[ed 2O.Ol.2O2S is extracted hcrein below

I At the outset, we would like to inform you that RCCVL DTA Unit ("DTA Unit") rcceived the allocation of Raw Petroleum Coke ("RPC") trorn the Director General of Foreign Trade (D()FT) as per revised policy condition 6(b)(ii) in Notificarion No.6al2023 dated 07.03.2024. issued undcr rhe guidelines prescribed by Commission for Air Quality Management (CAeM) ordcr dated l5.O2.2O24 under the aegis of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India (hereinafter rcfcrred as "CAQM Order" (Annexure-1).

2 Accordingly, the DTA Unit has been importing/ procuring the RpC on ,Actual User Basis' and not transferring any RpC to alty other unit(s) including the SEZ Unit(s). 7

Flrrthcrmore, RCCVL DTA planr is r.rot exporting an-V Calcined Petroleum Coke (,,CpC )

The Commission for Air Quality Management ('CAQM") in NCR and Adjoining Areas Order on Page 8 clea,rly states in the policy condition No.1O. f .i.b that "... Howcver, "deemed exports" to SEZ Units would be permitted." As such, it can be kindly noted that the CPC export sales to the SEZ Unit located in lndia is permitted by both the CAQM and DGFT.

Accordingly, thc aforesaid application for Advance Authorisation is meant for importing RPC, manufacturing CPC and to be supplied to Vedanta SEZ Unit, which is a 'Deemcd Export' arrd categorically permitted by the said CAQM Ordcr.

Based on abovc CAQM and DGFT Guidelines, your good ofhce has earlier issued the Advance Authorisation to RCCVL DTA Unit for importing RPC ald then for proccssing ald supplying such manufactured CPC to Vedarta SEZ unit vide Authorisation No.O9 1 1008243 dated 28.10.2024. (Annexure-111, which is a 'Decmed Export."

Questioning the impugned rejection order clatecl O5.O2.2O25, thc pctitioners filed the present writ petition.

The grounds urged in '*,rit affidavit it is submitted that the Regional Authority has erroneously refused to grant Advance Authorisation ro the Petitioners vide Rejection Letter datcd os.o2.2o2s stating that thc domestic calciners cannot supply CpC to SEZ units, and rvrongly rcluses Advance Authorisation to the petitioners, RpC

On behalf of the respondents, the Joint Dircctor Gctleral ol Foreign Trade, Hyderabad, Telangana, .while denying thc writ averments, hled counter afhdavit, inter alia, slating that a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedies by way of revision provided under Section 16 of the FT (D&R) Amcndment Act, 1992 read with F"f (D&R) Amendment Act, 2o 1o and by way of filing an application under Para 2.58 of FTP, which i.s extracted hereunder:

It is submitted that the Commission, accordingly, in compliance of the directions of the Hon'bie Supreme Court and the observations and recommendations made by the inter-ministcrial subcommittee dircctcd as under:

It is submitted that based on the directions issued by CAQM vide its order dated 14.O2.2O24 a notification dated 07.03.2024 was issucd by D(}FT, notiff ing amendment in import policy condition for raw pet cokc ancl calcined pet coke under Chapter 27 of Schedule-1 (lmport Policy) of flc (HC) 2022 with. immediate effect. 20. [t is submitt.ccl that from a perusal of the DGFT Notification, it permits exporr by domcstic calcining units to SEZ units rvhereas, Clause 6(b)(i) and (iii) provides as follows: "i. Import of RPC arld CPC sha-ll be permrtted to cater er.rtirely to the domestic needs oI alurninium industry, for the processes as permittcd under the relevant regnlations / statutes. ii. Import ol RPC by Calciners shall be on Actual User basis and shall not be transferred to any othcr unit(s) including SEZ unit(s). Export of CPC by Calciners shall not be permitted."

It is further submitted that the import product mentioned in the head 'lnput Details' is raw pe[ coke and the export product as Itentioned in the Head 'Export Product'is calcined petroleum coke and no[ed that thc Custom Notification Number as selccted under t4 tlvsK. J w.P- No 7538 of 2o25 head 'Basic Details'of the application is 'Nofif c ation No-21/2O23-Cus dated 1-4-2023 Aduance Authoisation for phgsical exports', which is opted only for making physical exports and not deemed exports. Whereas, the CAQM order dated l5-O2-2O24 mentions that 'dcemed expor[s to SEZ is permitted' and not physical exports. It is further submitted that based on the application for advance authorization, it seems that the firm has opted only for the physical exports of CPC. Since, physical export of CPC is not permitted, therefore, the application of the petitioner stood rejected and no person can claim an authorization as a right and the grant or renewal of the same can be rejccted by DG FT or by the Regional Authority, by specifying valid reasons for such rejection.

It is further submitted that 'authorisation is not a right'and the earlier authorisations granted to the petitioners are in the proccss of being reviewed with the appropriate authorily. The CAQM ordcr expressly permits 'deemed exports'to SEZ units, whereas, as pcr FTP and StrZ act, supplies made to the SEZ units are only exports, i.c. physicat exporLs and not deemed exports. A Special Economic Zone (SEZ) is considered a "foreign territory" for thc purpose of trade operations and customs duties, meaning that goods entering SEZ are treated as if they are entering a loreign country. Respondents further refer to Section 2(m)(ii) of SEZ Act, 20O5, which reads as under: a t5 I{VSK, J (c) by Section 2 (ml (ii) of SEZ Act, 2OO5, export means "(m) "cxport" rneans (i) supplying goods, or providing services, from the Domestic Tariff Area to a Unit or Developer;' Definition of "Unit" under 2 lzcl of SE,Z Act, 2OO5, provides as follows: '(zc) "Unit" nleans a Unit set up by an entrepreneur in a Special Economic Zone and includes an existing Unit, an Offshore Banking Unit and a Unit in an lnlernational Financiai Services Centre, whether established before or established after commencement of this Act:' Thus, it can be deduced from the above provision of SEZ Act, 2005 that any goods supplicd from any DTA i.e. Domestic Tariff Area (where the pelrtioncr firm is located) to any unit in a SEZ is to be considered as export i.e. physical export. W,P. No.7s3a or 2O2s 23 . I t is furthe r submitted that as far as 'Deemed export' TS concerned, ParaT .O2 o[ FTP provides as follows: 7.O2 Categoties of Supply Supply of goods under following categories (a) to manufacturer and under categories (d) to (g) by main contractors shall be regarded as Deemed Exports': A. Supply by manufacturer: (a) Supply of goods against Advance Authorrsation / Authorisation for annual rcquirement / DFIA. (b) Supply o[ goods to EOU/ STP /EHTP/BTP. a / sub- \ Advance

It is submitte d that the petitioners are trying to build conncction betu,een advance authorisation, physical export and StrZ and intentionally misinterpreting the provisions. Further reference was taken to: a. Para a.O5 (c) (1) of FTP, clearly states that advance authorization shall bc issued for physical exports which also includes exports to StrZ. Meaning thereby that, supply to SEZ is considered as physical exports and not deemed exports. b. Para 7.O2 (Al (a) of FTP provides that, exports will be considered as deemed exports if in case, exports/ suppiies o[ the goods are made against Advance authorization/ Advance authorization for annual rcquirement/ DFtA. Meaning thereby that if supplies are made to the company holding advance authorization or has obtained advance authorization, then it is considered as deemed exports'

It is further submitted that the two provisions of the Foreign Trade Poticy deal with exports under Advance Authorization (AA) but classify them differently based on the nature of the recipient' While Para a.05(c) (i) considers supplies to SEZs as physical exports, Para 7.02(A)(a) treats supplies to Advance Authorization holdcrs as deemed exports. Thus, the petitioner is not eligible to claim AA as a l1 W,P, No.753a or 2025 right as on cumulative reading of CAQM order and IrTP provisions, the firm is not doing any deemed export to SEZ unit 26. [t is further submitted that thc Act itself provides the following efficacious remedies. For reference Section l6 of the Act is extracted: "Section 16 Review: The Central Government, in the case of any decision or order made by the Dircctor General, or the Director General in the case of any decision or order made by any ofhcer subordinate to him, may on its or his own motion or othenvise, call for ald exa:nine the records of any proceedings, for the purpose of satisfying itsell or himself, as the case mav be, as to the correctness, Iegality or propnety of such decision or order and med<e such orders thereon as ay be deemed fit: Provided that no decision or order shall be varied under this section so as to prejudicially affect any person lrnless such person - (a) has, rvithin a period of two vears from the date of such decision or order, received a notice to shorv cause q,hy such decision or order shall not be vzLired; ar.rd (b) has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation and, if he so desires, of being heard in his defence.' Remedy by way of application under Para 2.58 of FTP : Para 2.58 Interpretation of Policy - (a) The decision of DGFT shall be hnal and binding on :ill matters relating to interpretation of Policy, or t \

That as per the DGFT notification dated 07 -O3-2O24, Import of RPC by Calciners shall be on aclual user basis and shall not be transferred to any other unit(s) icluding SEZ unit(s). Export of CPC by calciners shall not be permittcd. Further, the CAQM order expressly permits 'deemed exports'lo SEZ units, whereas, as per FTP and SEZ Act, supplies made to the SEZ units are only exports, i.e. physical exports and not decmed exports. 2a. That the respondcnts have not refused the authorisation erroneously but based on thc explanations and that the impugned order is reasoned order.

That the DGFT is empowered to issue Notihcation under Section 3(2) of the m & (DR) Act, 1992 (as amended) which provides that the Central Government may, by order published in the official Gazette, make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating, the import or export of goods or services or technologr.

Section 5 of the FT (D&R) AcL, 1992 (as amended) reads as under "The Central Government may from time to time formulate and alnounce by notificertion in the Ofhcial Gazette the export and import policy and may also in the like manner amer.rd that poticy".

Eventually it is submitted that DGF-| is well rvithin its power to issue the Notihcation and the rejection order dated O5.02.2025 is a rcasoned ordcr as per Foreign Tradc Policy, 2023 and the writ petition is Iiable to be clismissed. SUBMISSIONS:

The learned Senior Counsel Sri P.Chidambaram, representing thc learned counsel Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the impugned rejcc[ion letter dated O5.O2.2O25 is ex facie contrary to thc CAQM order and the DGFT Notification. The CAQM order gives express perntission lor deemed cxports to SEZ Units. The DGFT Notification was issued to give effect to the CAQM Order. The reasons given by the Regional Authority are that supply by domestic units to SEZ units are not cieemed exports under the FTP. Under Chapter 4 of the FTP, n,hic h deals with Advance Authorisation, Clause 4.O3 states that imports oi goods that are physical[y incorporated into goods exported are entitled to Advance Authorisation. Clause +.05(c)(i) specifically includes in relalion to imports intended lor manufacturing plrysical exports to \_/\

Lezrrned Senior Counsel submit that under Chapter 7 of the FTP, which deals with "deemed exports," Clause 7.O2 A {a) states that goods that are entitled to Advance Authorization :rre to be treated as deemed expor[s. Thus, the Petitioners' RPC imports being physically incorporated into the CPC and physically exporLed to thc Vedanta SEZ unit are squarcly entitled to be granted Advancc Authorisation and refers to the relevant provisions of Chapter 7 of rhe Foreign Trade Policy , 2023, r.r.hich are extracted hereunder: "[4 Deemed Erports 7.OO Objective To provide a level-playing field to dorrestic manufacturers ald to promote Make ir-r lndia, in certain specified cases, as may be decirted by the Government from time to time. 7.O1 Deemed E{ports (i) "Deemed Exports" for the purposc of this FTP refer to those transacLions in which goods supptied do not leave country, and paymcnt for such supplies is received either in lndiar-r rupecs or in free foreign exchange. Supply of goocls as specified in Paragraph 7.O2 below shall bc regarded as "Deemed Exports" provrded goocls art: malufactured in India.

The Iearned Senior Counscl lurther submittcd that earlicr the Regional Authority has permitted the petitioner No.1 to export CPC manufactured by it to SEZ Units and granted Advance Authorisations to the Petitioners on 14 .O5 .2024 , | 3.O8 .2024 and 28. lO .2024 . As such, there is no justification for a sudden change in the opinion or policy from its earlier decision to grant Advance Authorisations to the Petitioners by its rejection letter dated 05.O2.2025. Pertinently, the Petitioners' incoming shipments under its RPC import allocation quota for Financial Year 2024-25, are expected to arrive in the month of March. In accordance with the Pctitioners Restricted Licence dated O5.O4.2O24, along with the Amcnded Licence daLed 24.12.2024, the Petitioners are only authorized to import its allocated quota of RPC on or before 31.O3.2025. Thcrefore , the Petitioners seek urgent intervention of this Cour[ in order to enable them to import their 22

Learncd Senior Counsel would further submiL that carlicr the Pe titroners liled W.P. (C) No.2557 of 2025 before the Delhi High Court thal was dismissed by order dated O7.03.2025 on the grounds of lack of territorial juri iction.

The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the order o[ CAQM dated 15.O2.2024 is based on the delegation ol certain issues related to pet coke passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10. lO.2023 and the impugned order dated OS.O2.2O2S is clearly a miscarriage of justice. In support of his submissions placcd reliance ) )

The object underlying the rules o[ natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action". As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording o[ reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial [unctions achieves this object b_v excluding chalces of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of dccision making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to rccord rcason car.r be regarded as one of the principles o[ natura] justice which govern exercise o[ power b1' administrative authorities. The rules o[ natural justice are not embodied rules. Thc cxtent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder juri iction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the cxercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions thc legrslature, while conferring the said powcr, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passcd by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that effect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, I 119901 + Suprerne Court Cases 594 II

The learned Senior Counsel submitted that t]re countcr affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.1 on authorisation on behalf of the rcspondents No.2 and 3. Since the counter afhdavit has been hled comprchensively on behalt ol all the respondents, there is no scope to file revierv. Further, in terms of the Section 16 of the FT (D&R) Amendment Act, 1992, no notice or show-cause notice was issucd lrom the date of rejection decision. Hence, the petitioner has rightly ini,okcd [o challenge the rejection order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way ol filing the present rvrit petition. I t is lurther submittecl that the power under ArLicle 226 of the constitution to iss,c rvrits can be exercised not only for the enforcement of \

Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where : (a) the writ petition has becn filed for the enforcement of a fundamcntal right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principies of natural justicq; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without juri iction; or (d) the vires of a leglslation is challenged.

An a-lternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Articlc 226 of t}:re Constitution in an appropriate casc though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate rcmedy is provided by law. t (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 771

When a right is created by a statute, rvlrrch itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort rnust be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretronary remedy under Article 226 of lhe Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, conveniertcc and discretion. 27.6.In cases where there are disputed qucstions of fact, the High Court may dccide to decline juris<liction in a writ petition. However, it the High Court is objectively of the view that the naLure o[ Lhe controversy requires the excrcise of its writ juri iction, such a view would not readily be interfcred with." 38. 'lhe learned Senior Counsel would further submit that Chapter 4 deals with Duty Exemption / Remission Schemes wherein Clause 4.03 deals rvith Advance Authorisation. Clause a.03 (a) reads that " 1a/ Aduance Authoisation i.s issued to falloul duty free import of input, uhiclt is phg sicaLLy incorporated in export product (ntaking normal allouance for utastage). In addition, fuel, oil, catalgst uthich is consumed / utilized in the process of production of export product, may also be aLloued."

Clause 4.05 deals with trligible Applicant / Export / Supply: Clause a.05 (c) reads that " Aduance Authorisation shall be issued for (i) Physical expotl (ittcludirLg export to SEZ)."

The learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Chapter 7, which deals with Deemed Exports. Clause 7.01 (i) and (ii) reads that "(i) 'Deemed Exports'for the purpose of this FTp refer to those transactions in uthich goods supplied d|'not leaue country, and paA rnetlt for such supplg is receiued either in Indian ntpees or in free foreign exchonge. Supplg of goods as specifted in Paragraph 7.O2 belou shall be regarded as "Deemed Exports" prouided goods are manufactured in Indio. (ii) 'Deemed Exports' for the purpose of GST u.rculd include onlg the supplies notified under Section 147 of the CGST/ SGST Act, on the recommendations of the GST CounciL. The beneJits of GST and conditions applicable for such beneJits would be as specified by the GST Council and as per releuant rules and notifi.cation.

Clause 7.O2 deals with Categories of Supply, which reads that " Supply of goods under follouing categoies (a) to (c) by a manufacturer and under categoies (d) to (g) by main / sub-contractors shall be regarded as 'Deemed Exports": A. Supplg bg manuJacturer: (a) Supplg of goods against Aduance Authoisation / Aduance Authonsation for annual requirement / DFIA. (b) Supply of goods to EOU / STP / EHTP / BfP @) Supplg of capital goods against EPCG Authoisation." SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL F INDIA

The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Sri B.Narasimha Sharma appearing lor the respondents submitted that thc

That brings us to Chapter 8 ot FTp. Thc hcading of Chapter 8 is "Deemed Exports". Thc original Para 8.1 specilied that deemed exports refer to those transactions in which goods supplied clo not leave country ald payment for such supplies is received either in Indian rupees or in free foreign exchange. By way of amendment, it further provided that the supply of specihed t lZOz:1 tO Supremc ('ourt Cases 176

The original Para 8.1 reads thus "8. 1. Deemed exports.-"Deemed exports" refcr to those transactions in which goods supplied do not leave country, and payment for such supplies is received either in Indial rupees or in frec foreign exchange." 4O. Para 8. 1, after amendment, in 2Ol2-2O13 reads thus: "8.L. Deemed exports.-"Deemed Exports" refer to those transactions in which goods supplied do not leave country, and payment for such supplies is received either in Indian rupees or in free foreign exchange. Supplg of goods as mentioned in Para 8.2 belou.t shall be regarded as "Deemed Exporls" prouided goods are manufactured in India." (amendment emphasised)

Para 8.2 of Chapter 8 specifies the categorics of suppiies which can be regarded as deemed cxports. Clause (b) thereof is applicable to the present appeals. Relevalt extract of original Para 8.2 is as under:

The learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the respondents have lollowed the due process of law while passing rejec[ion order dated 05.O2.2025 and evcntually prayed to dismiss the wrrt petrtion. ADDITIONAL AFFID T OF PETITIONER:

The petitioners ha e lrled an additional aflldavit on 07.O4.2O25 and submitted that as p Minutes of Meeting dated 27.O3.2024 and by email dated 28. 1 I .20 4, petitioner No.1 was allotted in two tranches a total of 7,O5,600 MT of RpC import quota for Financial Year 2024-25. In the said Minutes dated 27.03.2024 it is stated that RPC import by calciners was perrnitted to cater ,,entirely to the domestic needs of aluminium industry (including Vedanta SEZ). In the said Meeting it is highlighted that the respondents had clearly

It is further submitted that during the Einancial year 2024 25, petitioner No. I imported its entire RpC import quota. Under Advance Authorisation pertaining to three applications, the petitioner No. i imported the RPC free o[ duty. However, the fourth application for Advance Authorisation to import approximately 54,9OO MT of RpC was rejected and is the subject matter o[ the dispute in this writ pctition. Further, an Advance Authorisation gives to the importer (petitioner No.1 herein) two rights i.e. (i) to import free of duty and (ii) to supply to domestic aluminium industry inctuding the Vedanta SEZ. In view of the dispute surrounding the fourth application for Advance Authorisation regarding 54,900 MT of RpC and in view of the fact that the deadline for import was 3l"t March, 2025, and the deadline was approaching, the petitioner No. 1 was advised that irrespective of the pendency of this writ pctition, the petitioner No. 1 may import 54,900 MT of RPC by paying the duties. In the said circumstances, the petitioner paid duty of Rs.4O,82,8 4,t28 / - (Rupees Forty Crore Eighty Two Lakh Eighty Four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty tright only) for import of approximatety 54,900 MT of RPC on 296 March, 2O25. 46. It is further submitted that if the petitioner No.l succeeds in the present writ petition, then would be entitled to refund of duties o[ Rs.4O,82,84, 128/ - (Rupees Forty Crore Eighty Two Lakh Eighty Four

The learned Senior Counsel refers to the Anncxure p-17, Minutes of the Meeting held on 22.O3.2O24 for.allocation for import of Raw Petroleum Coke for CpC manufacturing and Calcined petroleum cote for Aluminium Industry for Financiar year 2o24-2s. In the said meeting the following officers have attcnded:

In the said meeting, the Committee noted that pursuant to the recommendations of CAeM issucd vide order dated 14.O2.2024, DGm vide Notification 68/23 dated 07.03.2024 has notified that _ " Total import of 1.9 Miltion MTs of RpC for manufoctuing CpC and o.5 Million MTs oJ cPC for Aruminium Industry respectiuerg shatt be permissible during 2024-25, subject to the follotaing cond_itions: Import of RPC & CpC shall be permitted onlg as a feedstock / raut material and. und.er no circumstances shall be used as fuel. Import of RPC and CPC shall be pennitted to cater entirely to the domestic needs of Aluminium industry (including Vedanta SEZ), for the processes as pennitted" under the releuant regulations / statues. a I

The learned Senior Counsel furthcr re[r:rs lo the import allocalior-r for Ra',,r. Pet Coke (RPC) wherein the 1;etiLir>ner . No. I was allocated to import 4,84,169 MT., and further submits that there are contractual obligations with the Indian Company arrd that thc 3l4rn ol thc contractual obligations have been completed and by virtue of that, the Government has already collected the import dutl and now [he CPC remerins in godown and that they are duty paid goods. Therefore, the impugned rejection letter dated 05.O2.2025 is against the principle of promissory estoppel.

In the afhdavit, copy of the public notice No.49/ 2023, dated 11.03.2024 rvas filed issued by the Ministry of Commerce and lndustry Department of Commerce Directorate (leneral of Forcign Trade for import of calcined petroleum coke for aluminium industry and raw petroleum coke for CPC manufacturing ir-rdustry. The said public notice was issued regarding the procedurc lor allocation of I LLI.

Eventually, the petitioners prayed to allow the pctitioner No.1 to hnally supply to the Vedanta SEZ pcnding the writ petition. It is further submitted that on the contrary, that prejudice will be caused to the petitioncr No.1 if thc CPC is allowed to lie in the warehouse without being supplied to the Vedanta SEZ (which is in need of the CPC in its aluminium industry- thereby resulting in heavy losses to the petitioner No. I .

Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General refers to the copy of the authorisation dated 05.O4.2024 issued to the petitioner for import restriction items in the name of petitioner No.1 Company for a quantity of 484169.O MT. Further, draws the attention of this Court to the Licence amendment sheet dated 24.72.2024 wherefrom conditions are extracted for reference: I

The learned Additional Solicitor General refe rs ro the license amendment dated 24.12.2O24 issued to the petitioners Company for 705600.0OO MT, which would validate the authorisation for import is 31.03.2025 with the same conditions and further sLlbmits that earlier consignmen ts issued are also under review. 55 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and per.rsecl the materierl made available on the record \

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 09.10.20 1g in the wherein the Union of India through the Ministry o[ Environment, Forests and Climate Change filed and affidavit on O8rh October, 2O1g regarding use of calcined pet coke (CPC) in Aluminium Industry, held that the calcined pet coke (CPC) (domcstic as u,ell as imporled) 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, bascd on the repor[ given by the Central Pollution Control Board (CpCB) dated O4.1O.2O18 observed that as per the BIS guidelines, calciners are permitted to use high sulphur containing raw pctrolcum coke for making CPC having sulphur content less than 3.5%. While recording the statement of the learned Amicus Cuioe 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 pct coke. In the said order, the applications filed by the petitioner herein seeking certain directions, while considering the affidavit dated 23.08.20 18 stating that 11 contracts have been entered into on or belore 26.07.2018 for the import of Anode grade raw pe[ coke. Vessels

Furthcr, in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.10.2023 observed that the Commission for Air Quality Managemcnt (CAQM) should look into the matter afresh keeping in mind the availabilitv ol pet coke in the country and tl're requirement for import of pet coke which would depend, thereafter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court delegated the matter was delegated lo tl-re Commission For Air Quality Management (CAQM) as their job. Further it is also obscrved that "it is oppropnate thot the CAQM bestows consideratiott euen on this aspect and uhereuer ong inteim directions are required, the Conunission itself con pass those directions, uninfluenced bg other orders uhich may be passed bg any other Court."

In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of LA. No. 1 156 13 of 2O2l (Application hled for clarification of order datecl 09.10.2O18 on behalf of RAIN CII Carbon (Vizag) Limited) r,",hcrein it was held Lhat " Learned counsel for the appLicant submits that in uieu of the other aspects being delegated to the Commission, the facts of the present case be also examined bg the Contmission itsefl Tltis request is occepted and thus, the reliefs in this application are arso \

For better appreciation, it is necessary to extract thc order datcd 15.O2.2024 passed by the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas. The relevant paras No.3 and 4 and 10 are extracted for reference:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its Ordcr dated 10.10.2023 in WP(C) No.13029 of 1985 titled as M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors., delegated certain issues related to pet coke, to the Commission, inter alia observing that "... o holistic uieu would haue to be taken as to the distibution of the Pet Coke auailable in the country ond the Pet Coke required to be imported and hou.t both of them should be distributed inter se the tndusties. ..".

The Commission uide its Order datcd 25.1O.2023 accordingly constituted a Sub- Committee comprising members from CAQM, Ministry o[ Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG), Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MoC&l), Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and National Environmental Engineering Research lnstitute (NEERI as co-opted Mcmber). The Sub-Committee deliberated the issues in detail related to the distribution of the Pet Coke ava.ilable in the country and the Pet Coke requircd to be imported and made its recommendations to the Commission. \

The observations, deliberations ar-rd recommendations made by the Sub-Committee rvere shared with the Commission members and the Commission approved the various recommendations o[ the Sub-Committee. The Curnmission. accordingly, in compliance of the dircctior-rs of the Honble Supreme Court hereby directs zrs under: I. Import of RPC and CPC by Calciners / Aluminium Industry: i. lrnport of rotal 1.9 MMT RPC for CPC Manufacturers and 0.5 MMT CPC for Aluminium Industry respectivcly shall be permitted during 2024 25 and 1.9 MMT RPC for Ca-lciners and 0.8 MMT CPC lor Aluminium Industry respectively fron 2025-26 onrvards, strictly subject to the foLlowing directions: a. Usc o[ pet coke shall be permitted only as a fecclstock / raw material and under no circumstances to be used as fuel; b. Import of pet coke (Crc / RPC) shall be permitted to cater entirely in the domestic needs ol aluminium industry and other industrics, for the processcs as permitted under various regulations / statutes arld export of calcined pet cokc through such calcining units shall be discouraged. However, "deemed exports' to SEZ units would be permitted; w.P. No.753A o( 2025 .' .if" { *

The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & lndustry Department of Commerce Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Nerv Dclhi, issued Notification No.68/2023 on OZ.O3.ZO24, in rcspecr of "Amendment in Import policy condition for Raw pet Cokc and Calcined Pet Coke under Chapte r 27 of Schedule-l (lmport poticy) ol ITC (HS) 2022" to Condirion No.06(b). Revised policy Condirion reads as under "Total import of 1.9 Million MTs of Raw petroleum Coke (RPC) for manufacturing Calcined petroleum Coke (CPC) and 0.5 Million MTs of CpC for Aluminium Industry respectively shall be permissible during 2024-25, and 1.9 Million MTs of RPC for manufacturing CpC Manufacturing and 0.8 Million MTs of CpC for Aluminium Industry respectively shalt be permissible from 2025_26 onwands, subject to the following conditions: Import of RPC & CPC shall be permitted only as a feedstock f raw material ald under circumstances shall be used as fue1. Import of RPC and CPC shall be permitted to cater entirely to the domestic needs of aluminium industry, for thc processes as permitted under the relevant regulations / statutes. 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 perrnitted. lu no 43 lmport of CPC by Aluminium Industry shall be on Actual User basis. Export ofAnode by Aluminium lndustry shall not be permitted. The RPC/CPC Processing capacity as on the date ol the CAQM Order i,e. 15.02.2024 s}rdl be taken on record for any pro-rata allocations. All othcr conditions as mentioned in the Commission for Air Qua-lity Management in NCR & Adjoining Arcas Order No F.No. 1600i4/16/2021- MtrRD/Pctcokc-35 datcd 15.02.2024 should also be complied rvith." w.P. xo.753a oa 2C25 IV v1

Subsequentll', authorisation for import of restricted item of Raw Petroleum Coke n,as granLed to the petitioner on O5.O4.2O24 for quanlity of 4,84,169.0 M'ls. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted advance authorisation on 28.10.2024 to import duty free items for quantity of 34,999.995 MTs,

Similarly on 11.O5.2O24 another advance authorisation u,as granted to the petitioncr to import dufy free item of Raw Petroleum Coke lor quantitl, of 8I,000.00O MTs., and another advance authorisation dated 13.08.2024 was granted to the petitioner to import duty free Raw Petrolcum Coke for quantity of 55,500.000 MTs., and the petitioner has accordingly given an undertaking for advance authorisation on 18.O4.2024, 09.Oa.2O24, 17.1O.2O24 and 37.12.2024. 44 w_P. No.7s3a of 202s

Thereafter, the respondents have issued a deficiency letter dated 15.01.2025 sraring rhar ,,As per DGFT Notification No.6B/2023 dt.07.03.2o24, the reubed policy condition O6.(b)(iii) import of RpC bg caLciners shall be on Actual use basis and_ shall not be transfened. to ang other unit (s) including SEZ unit(s). Axport oj CpC by calciners shall not be pennitted. "

In rcsponse to the said deficiency letter dated 1S.01.2025, petitioner submitted explana[ion on 20.Ol.2O2S as under:

Committee noted that pursuart to the recommendations of CAQM issued vidc Order dated 14.O2.2024, DGF"f vide Notihcatir>n 68123 dated 07.O3.2024 has notihed that - Total import of 1.9 Million MTs of RPC for manufacturing CPC ald 0.5 Million MTs of CPC for Aluminium Industry respectively shall be permissible duritg 2024-25, subject to the following conditions: import of RPC & CPC shall be permitted only as a feedstock f raw material arrd under no circumstanccs shall be used as fuel. Import of RPC and CPC shall be permitterl to carer entirely to the domestic needs of Aluminium industry (including Vedanta SEZ), for rhe processes as permitted under the relcvant regulations / statues. Import of RPC by Calciners shall bc on Actual User basis and shall not be treansferred to any other unit(s) including SEZ unit(s). Export of Ct,C by Calciners shall not be permitted. Import of CPC by Aluminium Industry shall be on Actual User basis- Export of Anode by Aluminium Industry sha.ll not be permitted. All other conditions as mentioned in the Commission for Air Quality Mar-ragement in NCR & Adjoining Areas Order No F.No. 16O0 1 4 / \6l2O2t- MERD/PetCoke-3s dated 14.O2.2O24 shoulcl also be complied with." w.P- No.7538 of 2025 It lll lv.

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 .O5.2O24 , 13.08.2024 and 28.10.2024, and in view of the preceding analysis there is no justification in issuing DGF"T Notification No.6g/2O23 dated 07.03.2 O24 to the extent of revising the poiicy 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 15.02.2O24 passed in pursuance to the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in M.C. Mehta in W.p. (Civil) No. 13029 of 7985 and rhe Minures of the Meeting held on 27.O3.2O24, which is again in consonance to interpretation of policy under Chapter-ll of General Provisions Regarding Imports and Exports of Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. 70. For reference, Clause 2.58 Interpretation of policy is extracted hereunder (a) "2.58 Interpretation of Policy The decision of DGFT shall be hnal and binding on all matters relating to interpretation of policy, or provision in Haldbook of Procedures, Appendices ald Aayat Niryat Forms or classifrcation of any item for import / export in the rTC (HS). (b) A Policy Interpretation Committee (PIC) may be constituted to aid and advice DGFT- The composition of the PIC would be as follows: I ( (r) DGFT : Chairman

Further, it is also to be noted that the impugned rejec[ion letter dated 05.O2.2025 has been issued without considering the explanation dated 20.O 1.2025 given by the petrtioner to the dehciency letter dated 15.O1.2024. As such, it is not a reasoned order. ln the case on hand, the change in the policy would cause genuine hardship and would have adverse impact on trade of the petitioner,s company.

Further, since earlier the petitioner was granted three advance authorisations and the same are under review belorc [he respondents, authority, this Court is of the considered opinion to pass the following directions

In the light of the orders passed by the CAeM 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.O3.2024 the Deficiency Letter dated 15.O2.2O24 is contrary to the CAeM Order and the ffGF"l t'Iotification which implements the CAeM Order. I

For the aforesaid reasons and since the pctitioners have already paid the duty on RPC on 29.O3.2O25, the rcspondents are directed to permit the petitioner to supply CPC to Vedanta SEZ.

It is also made clear that the petitioncr,s eligibility for advance authorisation is subject to the result of the review, i.r,hich is already underway for the earlier Advancc Authorisation pending lo be decided by the respondents/ appropriate authority.

Accordingly, with the above obscrvations, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no orcler as to costs. 50 *

The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. New Delhi.

The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, Htgh Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

The Additiorial Director General of Foreign Trade, Hyderabad Regional Authority, Hyderabad Directorate General of Foreign Trade CGO Towers, Room no 302, 3rd Floor, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad - 500080

The Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Department of Commerce, [t/inistry of Commerce and lndustry, Government of lndia, Vanijya Bhavan, '16 Akbar Road, New Delhi - 1 1001 1 6 The Secretary, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Qommerce and tndustry, Govilrnmeht of lndia, Union of lndia, Departmenl of Commerce Vanijya Bhavpn 7 One CC to SRI SAI SANJAY SURANENI, Advocalq, [OPUC] B one CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, (Deputy Solicitor General of lndia), High Court fpr the State of Tqlangana at Hydqrabqd. [OPUC] 9 Two CD Copies BSK SS ?AQ, i i- i. l') I