Page 189 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] A.D. ENTERPRISE v. UNION OF INDIA 171

18-7-2019 Similar petitions were filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
being the Writ Petition (C) No. 7676 of 2019. Even in this petition
the policy dated 25-6-2019 was under challenge.
On the said date, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed that
prima facie this Court concurs with the contention that if the regis-
tration of the TMO itself is exhausted on the basis of the country
cap, then the guidelines would work on first come first serve basis,
which is not the methodology under the said guidelines.
28-8-2019 That in the said petition, the Respondent No. 2 herein referred to a
communication of the TMO and confirmed that the Turkish Au-
thority will remove the old contracts in the system and reupload
the sale contract for year 2019-20.
However, the advocate for petitioner in that matter contended that
the clarification was insufficient inasmuch as it does not specifical-
ly state that only those contracts which were executed on or after
the declaration of the country cap will be uploaded by the Turkish
Authorities.
6-9-2019 Thereafter, the TMO addressed a letter to the Respondent No. 2
stating that the crop year 2018-19 have lapsed along with the expi-
ry of the shipment period i.e. 31-7-2019 due to the lack of import
permits.
Under the circumstances, upon declaration of the new Public No-
tice by the CBN, all the Turkish exporters would be required to
make new application for fresh registration of their Export Con-
tract with the TMO for shipment period 2019-20, and the valid ap-
plication shall be uploaded by them with the CBN for the issuance
of the import permits.
11-9-2019 In view of the above communication, the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi observed that the petitioner’s grievance with regard to the
non-fixation of the country cap and the registration of contracts
prior to the declaration of the country cap stands satisfied.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi also observed that the Respond-
ent No. 2 shall device some mechanism for ensuring equitable dis-
tribution of the importable quantity amongst all the applicants. In
view of the above, the Writ Petition (C) No. 7676 of 2019 came to
be disposed of.
13-9-2019 The Respondent No. 2 came up with the impugned guidelines. In
Public Notice No. PS-11/2019, dated 13-9-2019, the Respondent
No. 2 herein declared that the earlier guidelines dated 25-6-2019
has become otiose inasmuch as the crop year 2018-19 is already
over.
18-9-2019 Under the circumstances, on 18-9-2019, the petitioner herein en-
tered into a fresh contract for the purchase of the poppy seeds of
90 Mts.
September, However, since the said Public Notice do not prescribe any proce-
2019 dure or criteria for the “Registration of sales contract” in respect of
any import of the poppy seeds from Turkey; the TMO refused to
register the sales contract on the pretext that the entire cap for the
import of the poppy seeds under the public notice dated 13-9-2019
is exhausted on first-come-first-serve basis.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  189