- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 14 July 2020
- Bench
- Navin Chawla
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 11125/2019
Judgment
NAVIN CHAWLA, J July 14, 2020 RN
Case details
Parties and counsel
Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 30.06.2020 Date of Decision: 14th July, 2020 + W.P.(C) 7676/2019 & CM Nos. 45339/2019, 12503/2020 DEVKI GLOBAL CAPITAL PVT. LTD. & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Jayant Mehta and Mr.Abhimanyu Arun Walia, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Mr.Srivats Kaushal, Adv. for UOI. Mr.Gaurav Barathi, Adv. for the applicant in CM No.35918/2019. AND W.P.(C) 11123/2019 & CM Nos. 45817/2019, 12499/2020 K. L GUPTA AND SONS PVT. LTD.& ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Jayant Mehta and Mr.Arun Abhimanyu Walia, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Anil Soni, CGSC, UOI with Mr.Devesh Dubey, Adv. AND W.P.(C) 11125/2019 & CM Nos. 45821/2019, 12480/2020 SHAMBHYU MERCANTILE LTD. & ANR. ..... Petitioners Page 2 Through: Mr.Jayant Mehta & Mr.Abhimanyu Arun Walia, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Anil Soni, CGSC, UOI with Mr.Devesh Dubey, Adv. AND W.P.(C) 13124/2019 & CM Nos.53488/2019, 12458/2020 SUN ORGANIC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR. ....Petitioners Through: Mr.Ashish Dholakia and Ms.Damini Chawla, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Mr.Srivats Kaushal, Adv. for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners feeling aggrieved of the non-registration by the respondent no.2- the Narcotics Commissioner, of their contracts for import of poppy seeds from Turkey. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy, poppy seeds are freely importable, subject only to the conditions mentioned in Clause 3, Chapter 12, Section II of Schedule 1 of the Import Policy. The said conditions inter alia require import contracts to be compulsorily registered with the respondent no.2. Page 3 3. Clause 17 of the National Policy on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances provides that the import of poppy seeds shall continue till self-sufficiency is achieved and the only condition for such import is that the poppy seeds should have been imported from a country authorized internationally to grow opium poppy for export and that it has been legitimately cultivated. 4. The petitioners further place reliance on the Public Notice dated 25.06.2019 containing "the Guidelines for Registration of the Sales Contracts for import of poppy seeds from Turkey" (hereinafter referred to as the "Guidelines") to contend that the determination of the Country Cap for the purpose of import of poppy seeds from Turkey has to be made on the basis of the recommendation by a Committee comprising of the Narcotics Commissioner; one representative of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT); and one representative of the Department of Revenue, and is to be based upon the stock and production of the poppy seeds as communicated by the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) or the Turkish Embassy in India. 5. The petitioners further place reliance on the MOU executed between India and Turkey on trade in poppy seeds and specifically Clause 2 thereof to contend that the said Agreement also acknowledges that the determination of the Country Cap shall be made by the Government of India in consultation with the Government of Turkey and after taking into account the production of poppy seeds in Turkey in a crop year, balance from the previous crop years and domestic or other export requirement of Republic of Turkey. Page 4 6. Based on the above documents, the learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the purpose of fixing the Country Cap for import from Turkey is only to ensure that the import is of legally grown poppy seeds. Once the quantity of legally grown and exportable poppy seeds is available in Turkey and the same is verified by the Committee constituted under the Guidelines, the said quantity has to be fixed as the Country Cap. The respondents cannot arbitrarily deny or restrict the
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.