Facts of the Case

Sree Murali Mohana Boiled and Raw Rice Mill Private Limited filed Writ Petition No. 33481 of 2022 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Union of India, the DGFT, and Customs authorities, challenging the same Notification No. 31/2015-2020 dated 08.09.2022 that banned export of broken rice with effect from 09.09.2022.

The petitioner sought to export 4,500 metric tonnes of 100% broken white upgraded Indian rice under three Proforma Invoices dated 28.02.2022 raised in favour of a Sierra Leone-based buyer, Pee Gee and Sons, contending these were pre-existing contractual commitments predating the ban.

As in a companion matter (WP No. 32049 of 2022, involving different exporters but an identical notification and similar relief), the petition was ultimately closed on the petitioner's own statement rather than being contested to a final decision on merits.

This is a customs and foreign-trade policy matter; it has no connection to GST law.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether Notification No. 31/2015-2020 dated 08.09.2022 could be applied to bar export of consignments already contracted for under Proforma Invoices dated 28.02.2022, predating the ban.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The export ban notification was arbitrary and unjust as applied to pre-existing contractual commitments, and the petitioner was entitled to export the 4,500 MT already committed under the February 2022 Proforma Invoices.

Respondent's Arguments

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

Court Order / Findings

  • On 21.09.2023, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that nothing remained for adjudication in the writ petition.
  • Taking this submission into consideration, the Court closed the writ petition with no order as to costs, and closed any pending miscellaneous applications.
  • No finding was recorded on the validity of the export ban or on the treatment of pre-existing export contracts.

Important Clarification

Like the companion case involving other rice exporters (WP No. 32049 of 2022, decided the same day by the same Bench), this order decides nothing on the merits of the broken rice export ban — it was closed purely because the petitioner's own counsel stated nothing survived for adjudication. It provides no answer to the question of whether pre-ban export contracts deserved protection.

Sections Involved

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

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was closed without any adjudication on merits, on the petitioner's own statement that nothing survived for the Court to decide.

Case Details

High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Amaravati), Special Original Jurisdiction. Writ Petition No. 33481 of 2022 (with I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2022). 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.