CCI Rightly Closed BSM Traders’ Case | NCLAT

Case Details: Beach Mineral Producers Association vs. Government of India - [2025] 178 taxmann.com 588 (NCLAT- New Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Yogesh Khanna, Judicial Member
•  Ajai Das Mehrortra, Technical Member
• Kinngsly Solomon J., G. Balaji & A.R. Rubhavathy, Advs. for the Appellant
• Soni Singh, Ms. Parkhi Singh, Balaji Subramaniaum, Ms. Aayushi Sharma, Akash Kundu, Advs. & Ms Sunaina Dutta, Joint Secretary for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellants were dealers/traders in Beach Sand Minerals (BSM). They filed information against the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), alleging a violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

They alleged that, vide notification, the DGFT brought the export of BSM under the State Trading Enterprise (STE) and, consequently, Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL) was designated as a canalising agent for the export of all BSMs.

The CCI, by the impugned order closed information under provisions of section 26(2) of the Act, observing that change in export policy by the DGFT in pursuance of its statutory duties and implementation thereof by IREL was not amenable for examination within framework of section 4 and therefore, no case of contravention of provisions of section 4 of the Act was made out against OPs.

It was noted that the notification did not stop appellants from doing business with foreign buyers but only said such exports need to be channelised through IREL, in view of material being related to the 1st Schedule of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Prescribed Substances under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.

NCLAT Held

The NCLAT observed that since section 2(h) of the Act clarifies that ‘enterprise’ does not include any activity of government relatable to sovereign functions of government, including all activities carried on by the Central Government, dealing with atomic energy, etc., provisions of section 4 shall not be applicable in the instant case.

The NCLAT held that the CCI had rightly closed the information under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act, as the appellant proposed to challenge the notification, which was, in fact, a policy issue, and this was not a forum to seek orders for its quashing. Therefore, the impugned order did not require interference by this Tribunal.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Beach Mineral Producers Association vs. Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) [2019] 110 taxmann.com 18 (CCI) [Para 7] affirmed