Case: Hill Tiller and Company and Others Vs. Coffee Board, Bangalore, Through Its Chief Marketing Officer and Another

may be able to go ahead with the scheme". Paragraph 3 of the affidavit proceeds to state that the aforesaid noting had been approved by the Chairman of the Coffee Board and was implemented during the subsequent years and that there had been absolutely no modification in the method of arriving at the price while the actual price varied from year to year on account of the changes in the components that went into the allotment price. From this affidavit it is quite clear that while making allotments of imported chicory to Actual Users the rate or value of imported chicory was invariably taken to be the price inclusive of import duty, handling and administrative charges and other items of expenditure. If that be so in terms of a para 3 of the Circular dated September 19, 1962 the registered exporters of coffee including appellant 1 were liable to have their entitled made to them on the basis of not merely the C.I.F. price of imported chicory but the price which was inclusive of import duty, handling and administrative charges and other expenses incurred by the Board and the allotments made to them on this basis were proper."8. Turning to Rule IX of the Rules Governing Allotment of Imported Chicory to Actual Users framed by the Coffee Board on December 7, 1960 on which reliance was placed by counsel for the appellants it appears to us clear that the said rule on its proper construction cannot avail the appellants. It is true that the said Rules were framed by the Coffee Board on the subject of allotment of imported chicory to Actual Users during the period October 1960 - March 1961 when the imports of chicory were canalised through the Coffee Board. Rule IX which dealt with Sales Tax will have to be read in the context of the preceding Rule VIII that dealt with Payment of price by the allottee of imported chicory and so read it will be clear that the same was framed only for making it clear that the allottee was also liable to pay sales tax and other taxes, in addition to the price payable by him under Rule VIII. Rule IX had nothing to do and never dealt with the topic of how the allotment to the Actual User was to be determined. It is in this context Rule IX will have to be construed. It ran thus :"IX. Sales Tax. - The allotment rate shall be exclusive of all taxes such as sales tax - both Central and State - and any other taxes, cesses, duties leviable on the same according to law. These shall always be borne by the allottee for the appellants urged that the expression the allotment rate in the above rule meant rate (price) for allotment and, therefore, this rule provided for reckoning the price for making allotment as being exclusive of all taxes, cesses and duties (which would include import duty). It is impossible to put such construction on this rule. In the first place the expression used is not rate for allotment (as is the case in paras 3 and 4(3) of the Circular dated September 19, 1962) but the expression is the allotment rate which must mean and did mean the allotment price meaning thereby the price of the allotment or price of the allotted quantity which shall be exclusive of all taxes, cesses and duties leviable thereon under the law. Secondly, the context as indicated above shows that the expression the allotments rate must have meant the rate or price of the allotment. On its proper construction, therefore, the said rule does not support the appellants contention that the value or price of imported chicory was to be reckoned as exclusive of taxes, cesses and duties while determining the quantity of the allotment."9. In our view, therefore, neither under the terms of the Circular dated September 19, 1962 nor under Rule IX of the Rules for Allotment of Imported Chicory to the Actual Users framed on December 7, 1960 were the registered exporters (including the first appellant) entitled to have allotments of imported chicory made to them on the basis of merely the C.I.F. price paid by the Board while importing chicory.10. Moreover, we find considerable force in the contention of counsel for the Coffee Board that the registered exporters (including the first appellant) should not be permitted to put forward their aforesaid grievance at a belated stage, for, the facts emerging on record in that behalf are very revealing. It was after accepting the earlier allotments made on the basis of the price being inclusive of import duty, handling and administrative charges and other expenses incurred by the Board under the scheme that for the first time by its letter dated October 4, 1965 the Association (second appellant) made its complaint that the price was wrongly being reckoned as inclusive of import duty, handling and administrative charges etc. to which the Coffee Board by its reply dated October 19, 1965 asserted that the price had been fixed after careful consideration and the same could not be reduced. Even thereafter by its letter dated January 28, 1966, the Association seems to have acquiesced in and accepted allotments made to the registered exporters on that basis up to the month of October 1965 and merely stated that the Association will feel obliged if allotments for the month of November and onwards were made on the basis of mere C.I.F. price paid by the Board and that too because the market for imported chicory was declining very fast with the result that the coffee exporters were unable to realise profits as calculated by them and, therefore, in order to enable them to reduce their losses the request was made. In other words, relief of sympathetic consideration was solicited by the Association from the Coffee Board with regard to future allotments. In these circumstances the grievance made by the appellants cannot be entertained by a court of law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. In our view, therefore, neither under the terms of the Circular dated September 19, 1962 nor under Rule IX of the Rules for Allotment of Imported Chicory to the Actual Users framed on December 7, 1960 were the registered exporters (including the first appellant) entitled to have allotments of imported chicory made to them on the basis of merely the C.I.F. price paid by the Board while importing chicory.10. Moreover, we find considerable force in the contention of counsel for the Coffee Board that the registered exporters (including the first appellant) should not be permitted to put forward their aforesaid grievance at a belated stage, for, the facts emerging on record in that behalf are very revealing. It was after accepting the earlier allotments made on the basis of the price being inclusive of import duty, handling and administrative charges and other expenses incurred by the Board under the scheme that for the first time by its letter dated October 4, 1965 the Association (second appellant) made its complaint that the price was wrongly being reckoned as inclusive of import duty, handling and administrative charges etc. to which the Coffee Board by its reply dated October 19, 1965 asserted that the price had been fixed after careful consideration and the same could not be reduced. Even thereafter by its letter dated January 28, 1966, the Association seems to have acquiesced in and accepted allotments made to the registered exporters on that basis up to the month of October 1965 and merely stated that the Association will feel obliged if allotments for the month of November and onwards were made on the basis of mere C.I.F. price paid by the Board and that too because the market for imported chicory was declining very fast with the result that the coffee exporters were unable to realise profits as calculated by them and, therefore, in order to enable them to reduce their losses the request was made. In other words, relief of sympathetic consideration was solicited by the Association from the Coffee Board with regard to future allotments. In these circumstances the grievance made by the appellants cannot be entertained by a court of law.