2015 (1) TMI 118 - HC - Customs

Benefit of duty credit entitlement under the Served From India Scheme - Method of foreign trade - Held that - These are not matters which ought to be brought before a Court of law. How and in what manner the foreign trade needs to be developed and regulated is essentially to be decided by the authorities under the Parliamentary statute. If they evolve any policy or take any policy decisions, then, it is equally open for them to consider as to whether cases of parties like the Petitioner would fall within or need to be protected or their rights recognized by any interpretation and made appropriately of such policy decisions. The Court must not examine these issues as not only they are intricate but essentially of a policy decision and to be taken by the executive. It is in the larger public interest and of promoting foreign trade and equally developing but regulating it that the state or the Central Government before us must take such decisions. It may be that the Director General or his colleagues are of a particular view but our anxiety is that matters and issues brought like the Petitioner before us ought to be examined by the Ministry and at the Ministry level so that any doubt or confusion with regard to interpretation of the policy are cleared and the Petitioner can then take a definite stand. Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to communication rejecting duty credit entitlement under SFIS based on shareholding pattern and brand promotion.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company engaged in engineering services, applied for duty credit entitlement under the SFIS. The application was rejected citing majority shareholding by a foreign company and promotion of a non-Indian brand. The petitioner contended that they were not given an opportunity to represent before the authority and challenged the decision of the Policy Interpretation Committee. The court inquired why a senior officer from the Ministry of Commerce couldn't consider the grievance independently. The authorities initially argued that the matter need not be examined by the court due to alternate remedies under the Act. However, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce was directed to hear the petitioner's grievances regarding the communication and the policy interpretation. The court refrained from expressing an opinion, emphasizing that such matters should be decided by the executive for policy decisions related to foreign trade development and regulation.

The court expected the Secretary to make a decision independently and promptly, considering all relevant materials by a specified date. Until then, the status quo was to be maintained without implementing the adverse communication. The petitioner was granted eight weeks to avail all legal remedies if the decision communicated was unfavorable. The court disposed of the writ petition without costs, highlighting that their observations did not imply a judgment on the matter. The parties were allowed to take legal steps based on the Secretary's decision, ensuring a fair process and protection of rights during the proceedings.