Facts of the Case

This is not a GST case. The petitioner, Torq Commodities Private Limited, a Navi Mumbai-based commodities trading company, challenged Notification No. 31/2015-2020 dated 08.09.2022, issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), banning export of broken rice under HS Code 1006 with effect from 09.09.2022.

The petitioner contended that it had contractually committed to export 4,369.410 MT of 100% broken white rice under sale contracts dated 13.07.2022 and 24.06.2022 with foreign buyers in the UK and Senegal, entered into before the export ban was imposed, and sought a direction permitting it to complete these committed exports despite the ban.

References to GST authorities (such as the Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax) appear only in the array of respondents, as these officers also administer customs and export-related compliance; no GST liability or interpretation issue is involved.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the DGFT's export ban notification could be applied to consignments already contractually committed before the ban came into force.
  2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction permitting completion of its pre-existing export contracts.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The export ban notification, insofar as it applied to consignments already contractually committed under sale contracts entered into before the ban, was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice and fundamental rights.
  • The petitioner should be permitted to complete the export of 4,369.410 MT of broken rice under its pre-existing contracts.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The order does not record substantive arguments from the respondents, as the matter was ultimately disposed of on withdrawal before the merits were argued.

Court Order / Findings

  • When the matter came up, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a memo, enclosing a letter dated 06.09.2023 from the petitioner, seeking to withdraw the writ petition on instructions.
  • The Court perused the memo and letter, accorded permission, and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
  • Consequently, any pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed and interim orders, if any, stood vacated. The underlying challenge to the export ban notification was never examined on merits.

Important Clarification

This order simply records the petitioner's own decision to withdraw the case; it contains no ruling on the validity of the export ban, the scope of DGFT's notification powers, or any Customs or GST question. Readers should not draw any legal conclusion about export-ban validity from this order.

Sections Involved

  • Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (power to issue export/import notifications, as exercised by DGFT)
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on merits — the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the petitioner's own request, with no order as to costs.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 33016 of 2022
Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati
Date of Order: 14.09.2023

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.