2014 (10) TMI 818 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Denial of Foreign Trade Policy called Focus Market Scheme - Held that - Rule 7(f) enables the Director either to refuse or to grant renewal of licence if the applicant is a Managing Partner in a partnership firm or Director of a private limited company having controlling interest over it. Nowhere it is stated, any benefit accrued to the petitioner company or similarly situated applicant would be denied for the reason that for the partnership firm or private limited company in which applicant having controlling interest has liability towards Export Promotion of Capital Goods Scheme. It is to be noted that the petitioners are public limited company and totally different entity, cannot be equated with an individual who may have controlling interest in a partnership firm either as a Managing Partner or as a Director of private limited company. Therefore, I am of the view that the denial of benefit accrued to the petitioner based on this scheme is unsustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 regarding the Focus Market Scheme.
2. Application of Rule 7(f) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 to deny benefits to petitioners.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014
The writ petitions were filed by two public limited companies involved in the manufacture and export of cotton yarn, focusing on the benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014. The scheme in question, the Focus Market Scheme, aimed to offset high freight costs and enhance India's export competitiveness in select international markets by providing Duty Credit Scrip to eligible exporters based on a percentage of the FOB value of exports. The petitioners approached the court due to the denial of benefits under the scheme because the Directors of their company were also Directors of another company facing penalties. The court noted that the denial of benefits to the petitioners based on the shared directorship was unjustifiable, as the petitioners were distinct entities and not liable for the penalties imposed on the other company.

Issue 2: Application of Rule 7(f) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993
The official respondents relied on Rule 7(f) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, to justify the denial of benefits to the petitioners. Rule 7(f) allows the Director General to refuse to grant or renew a license if the applicant is a Director of a private limited company with controlling interest facing pending actions. The respondents argued that the shared directorship of the petitioners and another company with pending penalties justified the denial of benefits. However, the court held that Rule 7(f) does not provide grounds to deny benefits to a company based on the liabilities of another company in which the applicant has controlling interest. The court emphasized that the petitioners, being public limited companies, were separate legal entities and should not be penalized for the actions of another company. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions, directing the respondents to process the petitioners' claims under the scheme within two months.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 and Rule 7(f) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, ensuring that benefits under the Focus Market Scheme were not unjustly denied to the petitioners based on shared directorship or liabilities of another company.