Page 126 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

660 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

with the provisions of the Rules explicitly till date, none of the authorities under
the said Rules can invoke the provisions of Rule 45(7). The District Collector is
not an authority as contemplated under the Mineral Conservation and Develop-
ment Rules, 2017 and the authority empowered to take action is only the Region-
al Controller of Mines. Therefore, invocation of the said Rules is also only a futile
exercise.
17. The MMDR Act itself is a legislation made for the purpose of grant-
ing prospecting or mining leases within the territory of India. When the ilmenite
is imported, which is mined outside the territory of India, the said Act cannot be
applicable. The Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 traced their
origins to the Sections 15, 18 and 23C of MMDR Act, 1957. When the Act itself
does not apply to the imports, by no stretch of imagination it could be stated that
the said rules applies to the imports. As the ilmenite is freely importable, the first
respondent has no authority to interfere with the imports nor exercise the powers
of Central Government and thus, exceeded its jurisdiction.
18. In the light of the above, as the prima facie case is made out by the
petitioner, which is supported by Bill of Lading, Bill of Entry, customs assess-
ments and consequential payment of customs duty, the petitioner is the owner of
the minerals and it is entitled to use it in its factory. There is no prejudice caused
to the respondents in allowing the writ petition forbearing the 1st respondent
from interfering with the import of the ilmenite by the petitioner from other
countries in any manner including discharge, transportation, storage and usage
thereof.
19. In fine, the writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 24396 of 2019 is ordered
as prayed for. As narrated above, the prayer sought for in W.P. (MD) No. 22615
of 2019 becomes infructuous, pursuant to the compliance of the interim orders of
this Court. Hence, the said writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 660 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Abdul Quddhose, J.
P.A. FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD.
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, NEW DELHI
W.P. No. 31011 of 2017 & W.M.P. No. 33984 of 2017, decided on 30-1-2020
Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) - Mistake in shipping
bill - Inadvertent omission to select ‘Yes’ in online platform and to mention in
the shipping bills petitioner’s intention to claim benefit under MEIS - Third
and fourth respondents directed to permit petitioner to make necessary
amendments and issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to enable petitioner to claim
benefits under MEIS from DGFT subject to the satisfaction of the third and
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  126