SC imposes punitive cost of Rs 1 lakh on Centre

New Delhi, Nov 19: The Supreme Court has imposed a punitive cost of Rs one lakh on the Centre while dismissing its appeal against the Gujarat High Court judgment clearing the decks for export of pulses to West Asian countries.

The respondent firm, M/s Asian Food Industries, an exporter of pulses and grains, received orders from overseas for the export of 20331 metric tonnes of pulses and contracts to be executed between April 22 to May 2 this year.

The firm also received 29,4942 US dollars, that is 20 per cent of the contract amount Shipment of 20 containers, out of 107 containers, consisting of 415 MT, which took place between June 22 and 24.

The remaining 87 containers were cleared and Let Export orders on June 23, 24 and 26, were issued by the Customs Authorities at Kandla Port. Bills of lading were also issued.

Meanwhile, the Centre took a policy decision on June 22 to ban the export of pulses and the notification to this effect was issued on June 27.

The ban was enforced for six months under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act 1992. The Superintendent, Customs, refused to allow the loading of 87 containers and the government issued another notification on July 4, permitting export of pulses against irrevocable letter of credit opened prior to the June 22 decision.

The respondent made several representations to the authorities and finally a writ petition was filed in the Gujarat High Court and the same was allowed by the HC.

M/s Agri Trade India Services P Ltd, which received orders from Trade Corporation of Pakistan for supply of 3000 chick peas, also approached the Delhi High Court for the same.

The apex court, while dismissing the Centre's appeal against the Gujarat High Court judgment, however, allowed its appeal against the Delhi High Court judgment.

A Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Markandey Katju, in its judgment last week, ruled, ''Prohibition promulgated by a statutory order in terms of Section 5 read with the relevant provisions of the policy decision in the light of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the 1992 Act can only have a prospective effect. By reason of a policy, a vested right cannot be taken away. Such a right, therefore, cannot be taken away by an amendment thereof.'' The court concluded by saying, ''We, therefore, are of the opinion that whereas the judgment of the Gujarat High Court must be upheld, that of the Delhi High Court, albeit for different reasons cannot be sustained. For the reasons, aforementioned, whereas Civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) no 17008 of 2006 is dismissed with costs and counsel's fee assessed at Rs 100000, Civil appeal arising out of SLP(C)no 17558 of 2006 is allowed and the parties shall pay their own costs.''

UNI