Synopsis: The court stated that it anticipated that a decision should be made expeditiously in respect of goods which are perishable in nature, thus ordering the Customs authorities to permit the export of the goods of the petitioners which were lying to the Customs prior to the ban.
On Friday, the Bombay High Court urged the Customs authorities, prior to the issuance of a notification barring the export of onions with effect from 14 September, to permit the export of onions already belonging to them.
A petition was heard by the Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Abhay Ahuja over the issue by the Horticulture Produce Exporters Association, the proprietor of Fair Agro Industries and other exporters.
The Court was informed that a decision had been made by the authorities to allow the export of onions which had been loaded prior to the notification.
The Court further said that while it appreciate the decision taken by the Respondents to mitigate the burden of those exporters where consignments were already loaded for shipment, it believe that it will be in the interest of justice if the same advantage were extended to the goods of the Petitioners because according to them their consignments were with the customs authority prior to issuance of the notification
As the consignment goods were perishable in nature, the Court ordered the Customs to act expeditiously in the matter.
This petition was filed by the Association opposing the legality of the Notice prohibiting the export of onions. It pleaded that the notification violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and is not in the public interest.
The Customs actions would directly impact the income and well-being of Maharashtra’s onion-producing farmers and that “the State is responsible for their well-being.”
The notification is contradictory to the terms of the International Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the guidelines of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020.
Before the next hearing, the Court ordered Senior Advocate Pradeep Jetly to take the requisite guidance from the Customs Authority. Jetly appeared before the customs authorities along with Anil Singh, the Additional Solicitor General.
Appealing on behalf of the complainant, Senior Advocate Darius Shroff told the Court that the shipping bills given to them would expire by September 26, 2020.
Accordingly, in its order, the Court clarified that, because the matter is a case of subjudice, ‘shipping bills previous to the issuance of the notification shall not be construed as having expired’ until a final decision has been taken by the Court.
The case is listed for a hearing on 29 September 2020.