Page 122 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

656 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

visions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder. But the above provisions are
all relating to the prospecting, reconnaissance and mining operations within the
Union of India. The said act does not deal with imported minerals and the im-
port is governed by the Customs Department or authorities. The scheme of the
MMDR Act deals with the mining within the country.
7. The first respondent represented by the Learned Additional Advo-
cate General urged that the petitioner, who is the purchaser of the imported min-
eral, had not obtained the dealer licence under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers
Rules, 2011. Therefore, he is not entitled to transport the imported minerals.
8. Secondly, it was contended that Section 4 of the MMDR Act prevents
the transportation of minerals and since during the mining operations inside the
State of Tamil Nadu, there is possibility of getting mixed up with the frozen
stocks, the import should not be permitted.
8(a) It is the specific plea of the writ petitioner that the first respondent
has no jurisdiction over the imports.
(b) The MMDR Act applies only for mining or prospecting within India
and the Rules framed under Sections 15 and 23C of the MMDR Act cannot be
given extra territorial application. Further, they do not apply to minerals freely
importable under the Foreign Trade Policy.
9. The control and check imposed on the mining operation within India
cannot be made applicable to the mineral, that are imported. As the petitioner is
only importing the minerals which is mined outside the country, the mining
lease is unnecessary. Though the petitioner is carrying on with the said business,
there were no allegations earlier with respect to mixing of minerals of those
mined in India.
10. The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and
Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011, was published in exercise
of the powers conferred under Section 23C(1) of the MMDR Act. Section 23C(1)
provides power to State Government to make Rules for preventing illegal min-
ing, transportation and storage of minerals. Admittedly, Section 15 of the MMDR
Act, which applies to minor minerals, is inapplicable to the case on hand. In so
far Section 23 is concerned, the principal Act itself is not applicable to imported
mineral. Therefore, the said Section is also inapplicable. In this regard, the
Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 298 [State of Gujarat v. Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Kalathiya], in which, para-
graphs 41 to 43 read as follows :
“(41) Insofar as Section 23-C of the MMDR Act is concerned, it was
inserted by the Amendment Act of 1999 with the objective to prevent illegal
mining. That is clearly spelled out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons.
We may reproduce a portion thereof again :
“(iii) A new provision is proposed to be inserted in the Act
prohibiting transportation or storage or anything causing transporta-
tion or storage of any mineral except under the due provisions of the
Act, with a view to preventing illegal mining. Further, the Act is pro-
posed to be amended to cover the breach of the provisions of the pro-
posed new provision of the Act to be punishable. It is also proposed to
insert a new provision to provide for anything seized under the Act as
liable for confiscation under court orders. A new section is proposed
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  122