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

2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition may be stated thus : Chicory, a component used for blending with coffee, used to be imported from foreign countries. Prior to October 1, 1960 licences for import of chicory by "Actual Users" were issued directly to the by the Joint Chief Controller of Exports and Imports, Madras. Between October 1, 1960 and September 30, 1962 these imports were canalised through the coffee Board but on and after October 1, 1962 imports on account of "Actual Users" were stopped as the government discontinued the scheme of allotment of chicory to "Actual Users". Blended coffee has been a commodity for export earning valuable foreign exchange and with a view to give incentive to exporters of coffee from India, the government introduced a scheme called Coffee Export Promotion Incentive Scheme in the year 1962 whereunder through the Coffee Board allotment of imported chicory was done to persons who exported coffee. The values of chicory so allotted to each exporter registered with the Board was related to the amount of foreign exchange earned by him on the export of blended coffee. The scheme was published in a Circular dated September 19, 1962 addressed by the Coffee Board to all registered exporters whereunder initially in respect of coffee shipped by the India exporters for consumption in U.S.A. from January 1, 1962 to June 30, 1962 the quantity of imported chicory to be allotted to the exporters was to be calculated on 10% of the foreign exchange equivalent in rupees earned by each exporter on the quantity of coffee shipped to U.S.A. and "the rate for allotment of imported chicory to the exporters will be the same as that fixed by the Board for allotment of imported chicory to Actual Users". The scheme remained in force from January 1, 1962 to April 30, 1966 whereafter it was discontinued; but for periods subsequent to June 30, 1962 under different circulars issued from time to time the quantity to be allotted was altered, for instance, for the period from January 1, 1963 to June 30, 1963 the quantity was reduced to 2 1/2% of the foreign exchange equivalent in rupees earned by each exporter in respect of quantities shipped to U.S.A and to the extent of 1 1/2% in respect of quantities shipped toaccount countries except U.S.A. and for the period July 1, 1963 to September 30, 1963 the allotment of chicory was reduced to 2 % of the foreign exchange earned by the exporters but it was again enhanced to 3% which enhanced allotment continued in respect of exports up April 30, 1966. It appears that after the said scheme was discontinued, the Coffee Board had with it on May 1, 1966 a balance stock of 508 tones of imported chicory which the Coffee Board started disposing of in small quantities by public auction.3. On September 7, 1966 the appellants filed a writ petition No. 1765 of 1966 against the Coffee Board and the Union of India seeking a mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the Coffee Board to make the allotment of the balance quantity of imported chicory lying with it to registered exporters of coffee in equitable proportions according to what they were entitled to on the basis of the circulars on the percentage of their earnings of foreign exchange on their export of coffee and an injunction restraining it from selling or disposing of the same in any other manner. Such reliefs were sought on two grounds, namely, (a) that the balance stock of chicory lying with the Coffee Board which had been imported on exporters account must be regarded as being held in trust for registered exporters of coffee and that the Coffee Board could not sell or otherwise deal with or allot such chicory to any other person, and (b) that in determining the value of the chicory that had been allotted to the exporters of the coffee on the basis of the foreign exchange earned them the Coffee Board had wrongly taken the price inclusive of import duty paid by it and handling and administrative charges and other expenses incurred by it while only C.I.F. price of chicory should have been adopted and this had resulted in allotment of lesser quantities of chicory to the exporters. Negativating both the grounds the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants. As regards the first ground the High Court, on the material placed before it by the Coffee Board, came to the conclusion that the total quantity of chicory imported by the Coffee Board on exporters account i.e. under licences granted by the Government of India under the Coffee Export Promotion Incentive Scheme was only 2140 tonnes while the total quantity of chicory allotted to exporters for the entire period of the scheme was 2615 tonnes, that is to say, the total allotment to experts was in excess of the total quantity imported under the scheme, which excess quantity was perhaps diverted from the quantity of chicory imported on Actual Users account and, therefore, the registered exporters could not claim any further allotment from of the said stock of 508 tonnes of chicory. Regarding the second ground the High Court took the view that the appellants had failed to substantiate how they were entitled to claim that C.I.F. price of imported chicory should have been adopted for determining the value of the chicory allotted to the exporters.4. At the outset it may be stated that counsel for the appellants did not question the High Courts finding on the first point, namely, that the total allotment of imported chicory to the exporters was in excess of the total quantity imported on exporters account under the scheme. The only contention urged in support of this appeal before us was that the exporters (including the first appellant) were entitled to allotment of additional quantity of chicory from out of 508 tonnes lying with the Coffee Board in equitable proportion on the basis of the relevant circulars, inasmuch as while making the earlier allotments the value thereof had not been reckoned on the basis of C.I.F. price of the imported chicory only but the price inclusive of import duty, handling and administrative charges of the Board had been adopted resulting in lesser quantities being allotted to them.

Reasoning: 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.