Facts of the Case

Ten partnership firms and companies engaged in the rice export trade, led by Sri Chitra Agri Exports, jointly filed Writ Petition No. 32049 of 2022 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Union of India, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), and Customs authorities at Visakhapatnam and Kakinada.

The petitioners had entered into Rice Purchase and Sale Contract agreements dated 24.06.2022 and 07.07.2022 with a Swiss buyer, Capezzana Commodities S.A., for supply of a combined 23,000 metric tonnes of 100% broken white upgraded Indian rice. Before these contracted consignments could be shipped, the Central Government issued Notification No. 31/2015-2020 dated 08.09.2022 banning export of broken rice (HS Code 1006 40 00) with effect from 09.09.2022.

The petitioners challenged the notification as arbitrary and violative of their contractual and constitutional rights, and sought a direction permitting export of the pre-committed quantities despite the ban. The matter was heard over several dates, and the petitioners later moved I.A. No. 1 of 2023 seeking restoration of the petition by recall of an earlier order.

This is a customs and foreign-trade policy matter and has no connection to the Goods and Services Tax framework; none of the issues concerned GST law, registration, or liability.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether Notification No. 31/2015-2020 dated 08.09.2022 banning export of broken rice could be applied to consignments already contracted before the ban took effect.
  2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a mandamus directing the authorities to permit export of the 23,000 MT already committed under pre-ban contracts.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The export ban notification was arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice as it did not carve out an exception for pre-existing, contractually committed export consignments.
  • The notification infringed the petitioners' fundamental and constitutional rights and should be set aside to the extent it barred fulfilment of contracts entered into before 09.09.2022.
  • The Court should direct the Customs and DGFT authorities to permit export of the specific tonnages already committed to the Swiss buyer under the June and July 2022 contracts.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Union of India and DGFT, represented by the Deputy Solicitor General, and the Customs respondents, represented by standing counsel for CBIC, appeared and contested the petition, though the final order does not record their substantive arguments since the matter was closed on the petitioners' own statement.

Court Order / Findings

  • On 21.09.2023, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted before the Court that nothing remained for adjudication in the writ petition.
  • Taking this submission on record, the Court simply closed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.
  • All pending miscellaneous applications, including the recall application, were also closed as a consequence.
  • The Court did not go into the merits of whether the export ban notification was valid or whether pre-committed contracts deserved an exemption — the petition was closed without any substantive finding.

Important Clarification

This order records no ruling on the legality of the broken rice export ban or on any GST question — the petitioners' own counsel stated the matter had become infructuous, and the Court closed the writ petition on that statement alone. Exporters relying on this case should note that it decided nothing about the treatment of pre-existing export contracts under a subsequently imposed export restriction; that question remains open and was not answered here.

Sections Involved

  • Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – source of DGFT's notification-making power
  • Customs Act, 1962 – export clearance framework invoked by the Customs respondents
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India – writ jurisdiction invoked by the petitioners

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was closed without any adjudication on merits, on the petitioners' own statement that nothing survived for the Court to decide. This is a closure of proceedings without a decision on merits, not a ruling in favour of either side on the validity of the export ban.

Case Details

High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Amaravati), Special Original Jurisdiction. Writ Petition No. 32049 of 2022 (with I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2022, and I.A. No. 1 of 2023). Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati. Order dated 21.09.2023.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.