The Rajasthan High Court has directed the refund of non-refundable licence fee on watermelon seed import application.
The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman observed that the agro-industrial petitioners whose name was found in the second provisional list but for delay and on account of the intervening circumstance of stay, though he was eligible for importation within the Policy period, is deprived on account of unfair treatment by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) vis-a-vis 217 candidates.
The petitioner could not get import permission because of unfair treatment of the persons found in the provisional list No.II vis-a-vis persons found in the provisional list No.I.
According to him, in the provisional list No.II, even though he was provisionally selected subject to verification of credentials with regard to processing capacity, they were not allotted any kind of quantity and they were unfairly treated, and no immediate action was taken in pursuance of inspection, which was found to be in favour of the petitioner and thereby intervening circumstance of stay order was passed by this Court in another writ petition.
As a result, the petitioner though provisionally selected but for the unfair treatment and delay in action, the petitioner deprived of the benefit under the Import Policy dated 08.06.2023.
The petitioners for grant of permission for importing watermelon seeds made applications in compliance of Public Notice No.13/2023 dated 08.06.2023. The petitioners’ claim is that they were holding Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) licence and they are involved in importing watermelon seeds for the past many years. Further, they also have their own processing capacity and they fulfill all the conditions of the Public Notice dated 08.06.2023.
In spite of fulfilling all the conditions, the petitioners’ names were not found in the provisional list, which was uploaded on 23.06.2023. On the said background, they have filed the writ petitions, in which interim orders were passed on 07.07.2023 and on subsequent dates staying the further action based on the provisional list, which was uploaded on 23.06.2023.
The court held that the petitioners demonstrate that they were entitled to importation under the said Policy but for unfair action of the DGFT, they lost opportunities to import and the action of the DGFT found to be at fault. If such is a case, the petitioners cannot be double penalized on the one hand by not allowing the importation though entitled and on the other hand by forfeiting their licence fee.
The court held that petitioners are held to be entitled for the licence fee, even though import Policy does not allow the DGFT to refund the same.
Case Details
Counsel For Petitioner: Vinay Kothari
Counsel For Respondent: R.D.Rastogi
