2018 (4) TMI 1838 - HC - Customs

Grant of Redemption of advance authorization - non-fulfilment of export obligation - It is submitted that the fact of use of inputs imported against the advance authorization for use in the manufacture and supply of finished goods to the SEZ unit is not disputed and stands proved by the alternative documents submitted by the petitioner thus meriting redemption of advance authorization - HELD THAT - The consumption certificate placed on record by the petitioner before the RA as well as the Policy Relaxation Committee has not been properly appreciated. The said consumption certificate indicates the details of consumption namely, the supplier name, consignee name, customer LOA No./PO No., SEZ notification number and date, co relates with the SEZ notification number and the advance license number and date. In the backdrop of these documents, RA as well as the Policy Relaxation Committee would have examined the consumption certificate/ Certificate of Receipt of Supply to ascertain the genuineness of the discharge of the export obligation more particularly, the statutory authorities namely, the Range Superintendent of Central Excise and the Development Commissioner, SEZ have appended their signature on these certificates. These Statutory Authorities would not have appended their signature and allowed the endorsement or the affixation of a stamp, unless they were satisfied that these are the very ARE-1 forms issued at the relevant point of time which co-related with advance authorization and its number and date. On examining these consumption certificates, the Authorities could have condoned requirements of generating the bill of export and raising an objection that ARE-1 forms submitted without the number and date, would be hyper-technical. In the circumstances of the case where substantial material was placed on record to establish the factum of the export as contemplated under the Act and Rules or in other words, complying with the requirement contemplated under the Act and Rules, supplying the goods from the domestic tariff area to SEZ, considered to be equivalent to an export of goods physically from this country to abroad requires consideration. The Certificate of Receipt of Supply duly certified and stamped/ endorsed by the Statutory Authorities would have been appreciated by the Policy Relaxation Committee - respondent No. 4 to grant the necessary relaxation - the impugned orders of the Policy Relaxation Committee cannot be held to be sustainable - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Policy Relaxation Committee decisions regarding redemption of advance authorizations based on non-submission of bills of export and related documents.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and exporting electrical products, imported goods under advance authorizations subject to fulfilling export obligations. After fulfilling obligations by supplying to SEZ, the petitioner sought redemption, supported by ARE-1s and 'Certificate of Receipt of Supply'. Respondent issued deficiency memos demanding bills of export. Petitioner sought condonation from respondent No. 4, but requests were rejected in PRC meetings.

The petitioner argued fulfilling export obligations to SEZ without bills of export, supported by ARE-1s and certificates. Cited a Bombay High Court case where redemption was allowed based on ARE-1s. Emphasized the consumption certificate's relevance, correlating with authorization numbers.

Respondent contended non-disclosure of authorization numbers in ARE-1s and lack of proof for duty consumption. Argued that export documents must mention authorization numbers. Supported the rejection of condonation requests.

The Court considered precedents and Policy Relaxation Committee decisions. Noted the acceptance of alternative documents in lieu of bills of export in certain cases. Emphasized the importance of consumption certificates, signed by statutory authorities, as proof of export fulfillment. Criticized the Committee's insistence on bills of export and upheld the petitioner's argument.

The Court allowed the writ petitions, remanding proceedings to respondent No. 3. Directed acceptance of 'Certificate of Receipt of Supply' and related documents as proof of export. Emphasized the need for corroborative evidence and instructed respondent to expedite the review process within two months.