KANDOI METAL POWDER MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD. vs GENERAL FOREIGN TRADE

THE complainant is engaged in the manufacture of cooper metal powder and exporting the same for consumption by the foreign markets. It is thus engaged in foreign trade also. On 26.6.1995 the complainant company received an order from Makin Metal Powders Ltd., Wallhead Mill, Kingsway, Rochdale, Lancs for supply of 90,000 kgs. of USER-KMP 70 copper powder. On receipt of the order the complainant company applied to the opposite parties to issue the required licence to him for export of the goods as per order of the purchaser. He paid a sum of Rs. 20,890 to the opposite parties on 2.8.1995 towards application fee for the purpose. THE complainant thereafter appears to have pursued his matter, for grant of the licence, with the opposite parties. On 5.12.1995 the opposite parties informed the complainant that their case was placed before ZALC for consideration and decision, and the same was being sent by them to Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Jaipur for further necessary action. By their letter dated 5.2.1996 Annex. 6 the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Jaipur informed the complainant that since he had not replied to their letter dated 22.12.1995 within stipulated time his application for issue of import export licence has been closed.

THE grievance of the complainant was that by their letter dated 8.5.1996 Annx. 12 the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Jaipur had informed him that since requisite declaration had not been furnished by the complainant to them, the same was required to be furnished failing which their case shall be closed finally in terms of para 15 of the Export and Import policy. THE contention of the complainant is that since the export import licence was not issued by the opposite parties to him in order to enable him to honour their agreement with Makin Metal Powder Ltd., purchasing party, the complainant was put to a substantial loss. He, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 19,35,870 as compensation for loss of business, mental agony and cost of litigation. We heard the complaint today and closely studied the material on our record. On the facts pleaded by the complainant in the complaint, it can hardly be disputed that he wanted to obtain the import and export licence for sale of his goods to a foreign party. The complainant was, therefore, engaged in carrying on its business at a large scale. Obviously he cannot be treated to be a ''consumer'' within the meaning of the term defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i).

But in so far as his contention of being a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 is concerned we find that he had simply applied for issue of a licence to him which licence was required to be issued by the Government to enable him to export the goods to a foreign party. As stated in Ex. 12, as per para 15 of the export and import policy of the Government, a licence for import or export of goods cannot be claimed by a business man as of right. The application fee was not paid by the complainant as consideration of the services to be rendered by the opposite parties which all are Government bodies. The fee was charged from him towards application fee which is dependent upon the value of the goods to be imported/exported. Since issuance of a licence in accordance with the policy of the Government is governed by certain rules and regulations framed by the Government and the officers concerned have to issue such licences in the performance of their official duties, they cannot be said to be rendering services to the complainant for consideration received by them.

IN view of the above, we do not find the present complaint maintainable under the C.P. Act, 1986 and thus the objection raised by the O.Ps. is accepted. In the result, the complaint is dismissed with cost on parties with liberty to the complainant to seek his remedy before Civil Court, if so advised. Condonation of delay may be considered by the Civil Court/other Court to which the matter is presented by the complainant under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Complaint dismissed.