9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disbursement of 45% premium and release of Cash Compensatory Support (CCS). 2. Compensation/damages for non-release of incentives. 3. Grant of Export House Eligibility Certificate. 4. Costs and expenses of the writ petition. Summary: Issue 1: Disbursement of 45% premium and release of Cash Compensatory Support (CCS) The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to disburse 45% premium in lieu of Licences (Additional/Rep) and release CCS against export documents. The court noted that replenishment licences, CCS, Additional CCS, or CCS under SPS Scheme are payable as per the relevant EXIM Policy and other policies/guidelines. The petitioner admitted receiving 20 licences against 36 applications. The respondents stated that some applications were issued for a lower amount, some were rejected due to non-removal of deficiencies, and others were not collected by surrendering tokens. The petitioner did not provide specific averments to justify judicial review of these rejections or part approvals. Regarding balance 5 applications, the respondents stated that one appeal was allowed, and the premium would be released, while others were not traceable. The court found no basis for awarding damages or compensation in a writ petition and suggested the petitioner could file a civil suit or other proceedings if advised. Issue 2: Compensation/damages for non-release of incentives The petitioner claimed compensation/damages for non-release of incentives in terms of the EXIM Policy. The court held that it is not possible to adjudicate the petitioner's claim for damages/compensation in a writ petition. The petitioner could file a civil suit or other proceedings to claim damages, if advised, and move an application u/s 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of the period during which the writ petition remained pending. Issue 3: Grant of Export House Eligibility Certificate The petitioner did not claim any relief in the form of Certiorari or Mandamus for the grant of Export House Eligibility Certificate in the prayer clauses. However, the petitioner referred to applications dated 24th September 1988 and 27th June 1991 for the grant of the certificate. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove entitlement to the certificate and did not challenge the rejection of the application in 1991. The court found it difficult to go into these aspects due to the lapse of time and lack of detailed information. Issue 4: Costs and expenses of the writ petition The court held that it could not grant the prayer for costs and expenses of the writ petition and refund of costs imposed by the National Commission unless the petitioner specifically challenged the Order dated 26th September 1993 passed by the National Commission. The petitioner did not challenge this order, and the court found no reason to interfere and grant relief in respect of this prayer. Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to approach the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade with relevant documents for CCS claims under the SPS Scheme where files are not traceable. The respondents were directed to examine the claim and pass a speaking order within six months. All pleas and contentions, including delay and laches, were to be examined by the respondents.
|
