DGFT Can’t Restrict CPC Exports or RPC Imports When CAQM Permits

Centax Editorial Board

June 24, 2025

• 3 min. read

Case Details: Rain CII Carbon (Vizag) Ltd. Versus Office of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade (2025) 31 Centax 153 (Telangana)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.
Shri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, for the Petitioner.
Shri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a manufacturer of calcined pet coke (CPC), approached the Court challenging Notification No. 68/2023, dated 07-03-2024, issued by the DGFT, which mandated that raw pet coke (RPC) imports by calciners be on an actual user basis and prohibited both transfer of RPC to any other unit, including Special Economic Zones (SEZs), and export of CPC by calciners. The petitioner submitted that the said conditions were in direct conflict with the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) order dated 15-02-2024, which had explicitly permitted the import of 1.9 million metric tonnes (MMT) of RPC by CPC manufacturers for the financial year 2024–25 and also permitted deemed exports of CPC to SEZ units.

It was further submitted that the Minutes of Meeting of CAQM held on 27-03-2024 confirmed that RPC import by calciners was to cater entirely to the domestic needs of the aluminium industry, including SEZ units such as Vedanta SEZ. The petitioner also relied upon Clause 2.58 (Interpretation of Policy) under Chapter II of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. The DGFT had earlier granted the petitioner four advance authorisations, permitting CPC exports to SEZs but subsequently rejected the petitioner’s application without addressing the petitioner’s written explanation or the CAQM permissions. The matter was accordingly placed before the Telangana High Court.

High Court Held

The Telangana High Court held that DGFT Notification No. 68/2023, dated 07-03-2024, insofar as it required RPC import by calciners on actual use basis and prohibited transfer to SEZ units and CPC exports, was contrary to the CAQM order dated 15-02-2024 and Minutes of Meeting dated 27-03-2024, both of which aligned with Clause 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. The Court observed that there was no justification for the imposition of such restrictive conditions, especially when DGFT itself had earlier permitted CPC exports to SEZ units and issued valid advance authorisations accordingly. It further noted that DGFT’s rejection letter lacked proper reasoning and failed to consider the petitioner’s reply to the deficiency letter.

Emphasising that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy of review under Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation Act), 1992, the Court set aside the rejection letter and remitted the matter back to DGFT for fresh consideration, subject to the outcome of the ongoing policy review.

List of Cases Cited

ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir — (2022) 5 SCC 345 — Referred [Para 15]
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. — (2018) 3 SCC 85 — Referred [Para 15]
Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas — (2003) 10 SCC 733 — Referred [Para 15]
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India — W.P. (C) No.13029 of 1985, decided on 10-10-2023 by Supreme Court — Followed [Paras 17, 58, 69, 73]
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India — W.P. (C) No.13029 of 1985, decided on 9-10-2018 by Supreme Court — Followed [Paras 56, 69]
PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank — (2024) — Referred [Para 15]
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh — 2021 (48) G.S.T.L. 113 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 37]
Rain CII Carbon Vizag Ltd. v. Union of India — W.P.(C) No. 2557 of 2025, decided on 7-3-2025 by Delhi High Court — Referred [Para 35]
S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India — (1990) 4 SCC 594 — Referred [Para 36]
Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — (2022) 16 SCC 176 — Referred [Para 42]
State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics (P.) Ltd. — 2022 SCC Online SC 1522 — Referred [Para 15]
United Bank of India v. Satywati Tondon — (2010) 8 SCC 110 — Referred [Para 15]
Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu — (2023) 2 SCC 168. — Referred [Para 15]