2014 (9) TMI 523 - HC - Customs

Reopneing of cases to reject claim for the benefit under SFIS and to make recoveries - Held that - The Bombay High Court in its order 2011 (7) TMI 427 - Bombay High Court had held that transmission of data, voice or video utilizing the facility of an optic fibre cable laid by petitioner undersea from a point within India to an overseas destination in one continuous and seamless transaction would constitute a supply of a service from India to any other country, under Foreign Trade Policy. Task of PIC (Policy Interpretation Committee) was to interpret Foreign Trade Policy. In process of constructing the policy, it would not be open to committee or, for that matter, to any administrative authority to modify the policy or amend the policy. Directions in DGFT Policy Circular, to reopen the SFIS cases and to make recoveries in accordance with decisions taken at PIC meeting of 5-7-2010, is quashed and set aside. - Decided in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Implementation of directions from a previous judgment in a writ petition.
2. Delay in implementing court directions by Respondents.
3. Verification of Petitioner's claim for benefits under SFIS.
4. Discrepancy in offering benefits on gross or net basis.
5. Interim directions issued by the High Court.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the issue of implementing directions from a prior judgment in a writ petition filed by the Petitioner. The Court referred to the specific directions contained in paragraph 14 of the previous judgment, which declared certain Circulars as ultra vires the Foreign Trade Policy. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to its previous directives, which invalidated certain actions by the authorities related to SFIS cases.

2. The Court noted the delay in the Respondents' compliance with the directions given in the previous judgment despite the passage of more than two years. The Petitioner's counsel highlighted subsequent communications and the Supreme Court's order, indicating the ongoing dispute over the implementation of the directions. The Respondents requested additional time to verify the Petitioner's claims for SFIS benefits based on the previous judgment.

3. The Petitioner raised concerns regarding the verification of their SFIS applications and the discrepancy between the amounts claimed on a gross basis versus a net basis. The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's argument that the Respondents should have offered the amount on a net basis as previously contested. The Court agreed with the Petitioner's submissions and issued interim directions to address the issue promptly.

4. The High Court emphasized the need to verify the Petitioner's claims for SFIS benefits in accordance with the previous judgment. The Court directed the Respondents to issue scrips for the amounts on a net basis promptly and to verify the Petitioner's claims for benefits on a gross basis within a specified timeframe. These directions aimed to ensure compliance with the Court's earlier ruling and to expedite the resolution of the matter.

5. In conclusion, the Court issued interim directions to address the delays and discrepancies in implementing the previous judgment's directives. The directives required immediate action from the Respondents to issue scrips for net amounts and to verify the Petitioner's claims for benefits on a gross basis within a specific timeline. The case was adjourned to monitor compliance with the interim directions issued by the Court.