THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & ORS. versus M/S VINOD AND COMPANY

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 560 · Decided: 11-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & ORS.
v.
M/S VINOD AND COMPANY
(Civil Appeal No.5399 of 2019)
JULY 11, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 2(d), 2(g) and 2(o) –
Respondent applied for the grant of an REP licence for which it
was entitled to a premium on the amount of exports under the scheme
– Scheme for the issuance of REP licence was discontinued –
Consequently, the premium was not paid to the respondent –
Additional Chief Controller of imports and exports passed an order
holding in abeyance the grant of premium – Respondent filed a
claim before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – The
District  forum allowed the claim of the respondent – Appeal before
the State Commissioner was rejected – This was confirmed in revision
by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
– On appeal, held: The Exim policy is an incident of the fiscal policy
of the State and of its overall control over foreign trade – As an
incident of its policy, the State may provide a regime of incentives –
The provision of those incentives does not render the State a service
provider or the person who avails of the incentives as a potential
user of any service – Thus, there was absence of jurisdiction in the
District forum to entertain a complaint under the Act in regard to a
claim arising out of and founded on an REP licence governed by
the Exim policy – Accordingly, judgment of the NCDRC set aside.
The respondent carried out exports from 1988 to 1993.
The respondent applied for the grant of an REP licence in the
f.o.b. value of Rs 6,16,116 for which it was entitled to a premium
of 20 per cent on the amount of exports under the scheme. Since
the scheme for the issuance of REP licence was discontinued,
the premium of Rs. 1,23,223 was not paid. Additional Chief
Controller of imports and exports passed an order holding in
abeyance the grant of premium. Thereafter, respondent filed a
[2019]  10 S.C.R. 560
  560
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
561
claim before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
The District forum allowed the claim and directed payment of
Rs. 1,23,223 to the respondent. The appeal before the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was rejected. This
was confirmed in revision by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission. Hence, the present appeals.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The objects of the Exim policy are essentially to
stimulate industrial growth by providing easy access to imported
capital goods, raw materials and components, to substitute
imports and promote self-reliance and to provide an impetus to
exports by improving the quality of incentives. The Exim policy
is an incident of the fiscal policy of the State and of its overall
control over foreign trade. As an incident of its policy, the State
may provide a regime of incentives.  The provision of those
incentives does not render the State a service provider or the
person who avails of the incentives as a potential user of any
service. The State, in exercise of its authority to utilise and collect
revenue, puts in place diverse regulatory regimes under the law.
The regime may provide for modalities for compliance, penalties
for breach and incentives to achieve the purpose of the policy.
The grant of these incentives does not constitute the State as a
service provider. [Para 16] [567-C-E]
2.  In Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad
Sinha  it was held that the Board is not a service provider and a
student who takes an examination is not a consumer. By analogy,
the same principle must govern the present case. For the above
reasons, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was an
absence of jurisdiction in the District Forum to entertain a
complaint under the Act in regard to a claim arising out of and
founded on an REP licence governed by the Exim policy.
[Paras 19, 20] [568-F-H]
Vikram Sales Corporation & Anr v. Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes (1996) 4 SCC 433  :  [1996]  2  Suppl.
SCR 204 ; Bihar School Examination Board v.
Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483 –  relied on.
  SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & ORS. v.
M/S VINOD AND CO.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
562
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 204       relied on
Para 8
(2009) 8 SCC 483
         relied on
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5399
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.