2 rice export bodies seek review of Apeda move to appoint new law firm to handle Basmati GI, IPR cases

Two rice exporters’ organisations have urged the Commerce Ministry to reconsider the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (Apdea) decision to “arbitrarily” appoint a new law firm to handle global cases on basmati geographical indication (GI) and intellectual property rights (IPR).

However, Apeda sources said the law firm has been engaged after due process of tender by an expert selection panel.

The All-India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) and The Basmati Rice Millers and Exporters Association (Punjab), or BRMEA, in separate letters to Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and Apeda Chairman Abhishek Dev, said the new law firm has been selected without consulting stakeholders and exporters.

Both organisations said their representations do not question the law firm’s professional competence and were not against the law firm. One of the main reasons for raising concern was the law firm’s “conflict of interest.”

“Our concern relates to institutional governance, stakeholder confidence and adherence to the Memorandum and Rules of BEDF (Basmati Export Development Foundation) in matters concerning protection of India’s Basmati Geographical Indication,” said AIREA President Satish Goel.

“... it concerns the preservation of India’s long-standing legal doctrine, international credibility and the substantial public and stakeholder investment made over several decades,” said Bal Krishan Garg, President of BRMEA.

Garg said one of the most contentious issues in recent years has been the demand to include Madhya Pradesh regions in the Basmati GI area.

The law firm selected by Apeda had represented petitioners for the inclusion of some regions in the State where Basmati rice is grown.

Apeda had been “historically opposing” the inclusion of Madhya Pradesh regions in the GI area for Basmati rice.

“Any firm representing parties favouring the expansion of basmati rice growing area while simultaneously advising Apeda is in conflict of interest,” he said.

“Concerns have been raised by stakeholders regarding past positions taken (by the law firm) in matters relating to the territorial scope of Basmati GI. Without commenting on the merits of such issues, we believe these concerns deserve consideration before any final appointment is made,” said AIREA’s Goel.

The GI defines that Basmati rice is grown in the Indo-Gangetic plains. The law firm, picked by Apeda, questioned this and termed it arbitrary. It had also said that agro-climatic factors should prevail over historical and reputational considerations, and public perception has no “independent significance” in GI law, said BRMEA’s Garg.