Page 194 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

176 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

tration. The making of advance payment before provisional registration or
after provisional registration is a choice of Indian importer and would ob-
viously depend upon conditions agreed between the Indian importer and
Turkish exporter. The petitioner is alleging that condition is harsh and was
known to only view large players. This condition was known to all traders
from 25-6-2019 when Public Notice PS-9/2019, dated 25-6-2019 was issued
by the Respondent No. 2. Further the TMO has registered 220 contracts per-
taining to 143 number of Indian importers. The office of Respondent No. 2
has approved registration of 143 number of contracts till 30-9-2019 in all of
which advance payment has been made through banking channels which
indicates that there is no real difficulty in making such advance payment as
alleged by Petitioner. In case the Petitioner is facing any such difficulty then
the matter falls between the banking and the importer.
3.4 Petitioner is challenging the guidelines alleging that it creates some
monopoly in favour of few players and small time traders, importers are
discriminated against. The fact that 220 contracts so far registered by TMO
are in respect of 143 number of parties itself negates the claim of the peti-
tioner. So far till 30-9-2019 Respondent No. 2 has approved registration of
143 numbers of sales contracts which are in respect of 87 numbers of im-
porters out of which 34 are new (verified) importers. So the fact on record
itself negates the claim of the petitioner.
3.5 It is also submitted that similar grievances were also raised before
Hon’ble Bombay High Court in WP No. 7469/2019 filed by M/s. Chailbiha-
ri Trading Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. However, the Hon’ble High Court has re-
pelled this challenge vide its order dated 28th August, 2019. That another
Writ Petition No. 7676 of 2019 filed by one Devki Global Pvt. Ltd. before the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also been disposed of by the Hon'ble High
Court on 11-9-2019.
4.17 Contents of paragraph no. 3.6 is denied. The condition of 20% ad-
vance payment or opening of irrevocable letter of credit is provided to dis-
suade speculative trade and repudiation of contracts once they are provi-
sionally approved by CBN. The guidelines issued by respondent No. 1 pro-
vide for provisional registration and provision for making advance pay-
ment or opening of irrevocable letter of credit to the extent of 20% of total
contract value only to convert such provisional registration into final regis-
tration. It is further submitted that till 30-9-2019 Respondent No. 2 has ap-
proved 143 contracts in all of which advance payment has been made
through banking channels which indicate that this provision to make ad-
vance payment is very much workable.
4.18 Contents of paragraph no. 3.7 is denied. The procedure envisaged in
the guidelines dated 25-6-2019 is already referred in earlier paragraphs.
Therefore, the same be treated as part and parcel of the reply to this para-
graph. As regards the contention that few large players have pre-booked
their contracts, it is submitted that entering into the sales contract is within
the domain of Turkish exporter and Indian Importer. Therefore it is clear
that neither TMO nor Respondent No. 1 or Respondent No. 2 has any say in
the matter which entirely falls within the domain of commercial matter be-
tween Turkish exporter and Indian importer.”
12. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Vyas prays that there
being no merit in this writ-application, the same be rejected.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  194