Page 121 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] V.V. TITANIUM PIGMENTS PVT. LTD. v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THOOTHUKUDI 655

3. The petitioner had imported the ilmenite from Norway and shipped
through the material mined by M/s. Titania AS of Joessingfjord, Norway. The
petitioner had availed the services of M/s. Raja Agencies who is the petitioner in
WP (MD) No. 22615 of 2019 as his Customs House Agent. The purpose of engag-
ing agent was to clear the import of ilmenite from the ship and clear it through
customs authority and transport the same to the factory premises. The port of
discharge was V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust, Tuticorin.
4. The Customs House Agent sent the documents mentioned above
and they were checked and verified by the customs department. After the pay-
ment of the customs duty, customs department also issued pass to remove the
same out of the port. While so, it was understood that the first respondent has
written a letter to the traffic manager of the V.O.C. Port trust stating that the
berthing of the vessel should not be allowed and passed an order on 22-10-2019.
Challenging the same, WP (MD) No. 22615 of 2019 is filed. It is stated that prior
to this, the District Collector, Tirunelveli had written a letter on 18-7-2019 to the
District Collector, Tuticorin to stop the import, because of which, the petitioner
was kept in dark, and the Customs House Agent was also not even put on notice.
Though the petitioner has been importing ilmenite from 2017, for the first time,
there has been such objection for import. The first respondent had taken a stand
that the Rules framed by the State of Tamil Nadu by exercising its power under
the MMDR Act will be applicable to imports also. Though only the export of
beach sand minerals is restricted by the Director General of Foreign Trade
(DGFT), for the import of ilmenite which is major mineral, there is no restriction.
The respondents 3 to 6 have never so far issued any notification to control the
import of a substance, which is classified as an atomic mineral. The respondents
had applied the MMDR Act and Rules for the import made by the petitioner.
5. As mentioned earlier, berthing was refused to the petition-
er/Customs House Agent on 22-10-2019, which prompted the Customs House
Agent to file WP (MD) No. 22615 of 2019 on 23-10-2019 and an order of interim
stay was passed against the order of traffic manager. Based on which, the V.O.C.
Port Trust was permitted to discharge. Even thereafter, the first respondent had
directed that the imported minerals should not be transported from the Port.
Therefore, the Customs House Agent filed a petition seeking injunction against
the respondents as the materials to be moved from the Port to the godown of the
writ petitioner and thus, the materials were offloaded in the premises on 3-11-
2019. After which, the first respondent caused an inspection of the same through
the Assistant Director (Mines), the Tahsildar and the Village Administrative Of-
ficer. The above act of the respondents, according to the petitioner, was based on
the presumption that the MMDR Act and Rules are applicable to the imports of
atomic mineral. Therefore, the petitioner has moved this Court with respect to
the import of ilmenite from the other countries by the petitioner.
6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the MMDR Act
applies to imports. The MMDR Act is the Central Act which governs develop-
ment and regulation of mines and minerals in terms of the powers vested in the
Central Government. ‘Reconnaissance Operation’ and ‘Reconnaissance Permit’
are defined under Section 3 of the MMDR Act. The prospecting/mining opera-
tions to be under lease as defined under Section 4 of the said Act. However, Sec-
tion 4 does not apply to import of minerals, if mining of which takes place out-
side India. Section 4(1A) reads that no person shall transport or store or cause to
be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the pro-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  121