Facts of the Case

Manasa Quality Enterprises Limited, an exporter of rice, filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging Notification No.31/2015-2020 dated 08.09.2022 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, which banned/prohibited export of broken rice (HS Code 1006 40 00) with effect from 09.09.2022.

The petitioner sought to be permitted to export 12,500 metric tonnes of 100% broken white upgraded Indian rice, contending this was obligated under a pre-existing export contract (Contract No.436.202.1 dated 01.09.2022) with an overseas buyer, VA Intertrading Aktiengesellschaft, Austria.

The Customs and CBIC authorities (Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax, Visakhapatnam Zone, etc.) were arrayed as formal respondents by virtue of their role in facilitating exports, though the substantive challenge was to the DGFT/Commerce Ministry's notification, not to any GST assessment or demand.

The matter was listed and disposed of by a Single Judge on 21.09.2023.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the export ban notification dated 08.09.2022 should be set aside so as to permit the petitioner to complete its pre-existing rice export contract.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner initially sought to set aside the export ban notification as arbitrary and in violation of natural justice and constitutional rights, and to be permitted to export 12,500 MT of broken rice as contractually obligated.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No substantive contest on the merits is recorded, as the matter was closed at the petitioner's own instance before the respondents' arguments were fully addressed.

Court Order / Findings

  • At the hearing, the petitioner's senior counsel submitted that there remained nothing for adjudication in the writ petition.
  • Taking this submission into account, the Court closed the writ petition without any order as to costs, and closed all pending miscellaneous applications.

Important Clarification

This order records only that the petitioner itself considered the dispute to have become infructuous (likely because the underlying export contract or ban context had changed by the time of hearing); the Court did not rule on the validity of the export ban or any other legal question. It has nothing to do with GST — the reference to 'GST Bhavan' in the respondents' address is incidental to where the Customs office is located.

Sections Involved

  • Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – DGFT's power to restrict/prohibit exports by notification
  • Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was closed as infructuous at the petitioner's own submission, without costs and without any adjudication in favour of either side on the legality of the export ban.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: WP No. 35985 of 2022 with IA No. 1 of 2022
  • Coram: Justice Ravi Cheemalapati
  • Date: 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.