Case Details: Alkali Manufacturers Association of India vs. Union of India (2025) 36 Centax 1 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathibha M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
- Ms Niyati Kohli, S/Shri Rishabh Parikh & Pratham Vir Agarwal, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Ms Shiva Lakshmi, S/Shri Vivek Nagar, Madhav Bajaj, Ms Esha Kumar, Advs. for UOI/DGFT. Shri Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms Suhani Mathur, Ms Sanidhya Sharma, Advs. for Customs, Delhi along with S/Shri Daljit Singh, A.C. and Anand Tripathi, SIO. Ms Anushree Narain, SSC with Naman Choula, Adv. for R-5 along with M.R. Bhatt, Asstt. Commissioner, Customs, Kandala (through VC), for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an association of domestic manufacturers, filed a writ petition alleging that the minimum import price (MIP) for soda ash fixed by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) vide Notification No. 46/2024-2025, dated 30-12-2024 and subsequently extended by Notification No. 23/2025-2026, dated 30-06-2025, was not being effectively implemented by the Customs authorities. It was contended that imports below the notified MIP were being permitted in cases where the bills of entry or bills of lading were filed or issued before 30-12-2024 but the actual import took place after that date, thereby affecting the interests of domestic manufacturers. The Customs Department submitted that as per Clause 1.05(b) of the Legal Framework and Trade Facilitation provisions, the date of import was determined by the date of the bill of lading, and therefore, the MIP conditions were being applied strictly in respect of imports where such bills were issued on or after 30-12-2024. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that imports could not be treated as violative of Notification No. 46/2024-2025, dated 30-12-2024, if the bill of lading had been issued prior to the said date, even though the import was completed subsequently. It observed that the Customs authorities had implemented the notifications in accordance with the governing legal provisions by permitting imports only in cases where the bills of lading were issued before the date of notification. The Court found no indication of any intent on the part of the authorities to permit violation of the DGFT notification and accordingly disposed of the petition with a direction to ensure continued strict compliance with the said notifications in letter and spirit.
