Writ Appeal No. 1570 to 1575/88 and 191 to 196 of 1989. Case: Engg. Exports Promotion Council Vs Asian Wire Ropes Ltd.. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | Writ Appeal No. 1570 to 1575/88 and 191 to 196 of 1989 |
| Judges | S. Mohan, Offg. C.J. and Venkataswami, J. |
| Issue | Export |
| Citation | 1990 (47) ELT 336 (Mad) |
| Judgement Date | March 01, 1989 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
S. Mohan, Offg. CJ.
-
All these writ appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment since the point in issue is one and the same.
-
The first respondent herein, namely, Asian Wire Ropes Ltd., preferred W.P. 3994 of 1988 for a writ of Certiorari to quash the orders of the third respondent therein, namely, the Engineering Export Promotion Council, dated 2-9-1987 W.P. No. 3995 of 1985 was filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 therein to reimburse the sum of Rs. 4, 53, 007.01 being the balance of amount due to it under the International Price Reimburement Scheme, 1981. W.P. No. 3996 of 1988 was for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 therein to reimburse a sum of Rs. 1, 95, 859.40 due under the same Scheme. W.P. Nos. 3997, 3998 and 3999 of 1988 were filed for writs of mandamus against respondents 2 to 4 there in claiming reimbursement in a sum of Rs. 61, 676.70; Rs. 19, 07, 421/- and Rs. 11, 67, 327.90P. respectively under the same Scheme.
-
The case, shortly put in this: The first respondent in the appeals are the manufacturers of Steel Wire Ropes, which they export to foreign countries. They use Resulpharised Carbon Steel (forging quality carbon steel) for the manufacture of the said ropes. They purchase steel in the local market, but the price of steel in the local market is higher than the price in the international market. Consequently, the Indian producers, who manufacture their products out of Indian Steel are not able to compete in the global market. In order to enable the export and in order that the Indian manufacturers do not suffer unduly, the Union Government had sponsored a scheme called Internal Price Reimbursenent Scheme, 1981 (IPRS 1981). The said Scheme will be referred to as the ''Scheme'' in our judgment. In and by the Scheme, an Indian Manufacturer utilising domestic steel for manufacture of products for exports would be paid the difference between the domestic price and international price of the raw materials used. The reimbursement is given on the total quantity of steel/pig iron consumed in the exports effected. The Engineering Exports Promotion Counsil has published a detailed text of the Scheme.
-
The case of the first respondent herein is that they have been purchasing Resulpharised carbon Steel EN 8 DM from the local manufacturers of steel and were manufacturing wire ropes and were exporting them to various countries. After such exports, applications were submitted by them from time to time as stipulated by the Engineering Export Promotion Council in order to claim reimbursement. The Engineering Export Promotion Council, Madras along with its recommendation forwarded the claim of the first respondent herein to their Delhi Office, namely, the Engineering Export Promotion Council, New Delhi along with the recommendation of the Sub-Committee of the Council of Southern Region. The D.G.T.D. in their letter confirmed the fact that EN 8 DM wire rods are used in the manufacture of steel wire ropes.
-
On 2-9-1987, a letter was issued by the Engineering Export Promotion Council, Madras stating that on the basis of clarifications issued by the Ministry, the first respondent herein is not entitled to reimbursement of the price difference fixed for EN 8 DM forging quality carbon steel. According to that letter, no forging Process was involved in the manufacture of steel wire ropes. It was further stated that the first respondent was not entitled to reimbursement for EN 8 DM forging quality carbon steel even if the said material was used in the manufacture of the steel wire ropes exported by the first respondent. Without prejudice to their right to claim reimbursement of the price difference fixed for EN 8 DM forging quality carbon steel, the first respondent herein prayed for release of at atleast the price difference applicable to the lowest alloy steel category. It was under these circumstances, the writ petitions came to be filed for the above relief.
-
The matter was heard by our learned brother S. Ramalingam J., who posed four questions for determination.
-
The first question was whether the court has territorial jurisdiction. It was held that this court has territorial jurisdiction and it was maintainable under Art. 226(8) of the Constitution since part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
-
The second question was whether a writ will lie against respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition and they could be called authorities within Art. 12. The learned Judge on an elaborate consideration came to the conclusion that respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petitions were agencies or instrumentalities of the Union of India and are amenable to writ jurisdiction.
-
The third contention was whether the communication dated 2-9-1987 was liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. The learned Judge was of the view that even looked at it as an administrative order, it could be quashed.
-
The next question was whether any representation at all was made by the appellants before us. After analysing the scope of the Scheme, it was held that representation was made to the effect that if the scheme was followed, the manufacturers will be entitled to reimbursement of the price difference for the quality of steel used by them in the terms of the scheme.
-
The contention based on the annexure dated 15-9-1986 that the first respondent herein should have used imported high carbon steel wire rods in the manufacture of wire ropes was nothing more than conjecture or surmise. Ultimately, he came to the conclusion that it was obvious that the only material or the basis on which the appellants sought to rely to show that the first respondent has used high carbon steel wire rods was of no assistance. He came to the conclusion that acting on the representation of the appellants, the first respondent had manufactured the end product viz., wire ropes out of forging quality carbon steel, which is provided by the invoices produced by the first respondent. Under these circumstances, the letter dated 2-9-1987 was liable to be quashed and accordingly he allowed the writ petitions. Thus the writ appeals.
-
Mr. M.R. Narayanaswami, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. Nos. 1570 to 1575 of 1988 would reiterate three of the points raised before the learned single Judge. According to him (i) in cases of this kind, mandamus cannot be the appropriate remedy when disputed questions of fact arise; (ii) if that be the accepted position, the first respondent herein, must be relegated to a suit; and (iii) the Scheme, if read carefully does not hold out a promise and the question of promissory estoppel would not ever arise. Lastly it is submitted that the Engineering...
To continue reading
Request your trial