2008 (1) TMI 370 - HC - Customs

Export of Rayon Viscose Filament Yarn of sub-standard grade - DEEC Scheme advance licence benefit was sought to be denied on basis of recommendations of Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) - Notification does not specify any specification of the filament yarn whether it be standard or sub-standard - Once petitioners had completed the export obligations, the decision of the PRC to reject the explanation and make a demand for the purported unfulfilled export obligation is without jurisdiction

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to non-completion of export obligation under advance licenses; Allegation of exporting sub-standard goods; Enforcement of bank guarantees; Discrepancies in audit and logging by Customs Authorities; Decision of Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) rejecting DEPB norms; Jurisdiction of PRC to amend export and import policy; Retrospective application of PRC decision.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners, a company engaged in the manufacture and export of Rayon Viscose Filament Yarn, challenged the allegation of non-completion of export obligation under two advance licenses. They contended that they correctly declared goods in shipping bills, including sub-standard yarn, which was accepted by Customs for export. Despite delays in auditing, the petitioners fulfilled obligations and paid demanded duty and interest. However, Respondent No.2 alleged non-completion, leading to enforcement of bank guarantees and imposition of fiscal penalties.

2. The petitioners argued that the yarn's various grades, though termed sub-standard commercially, met technical specifications for Rayon Viscose Filament Yarn. They faced demands for duty on allegedly excess imports, despite completing export obligations. The dispute arose over the classification of sub-standard yarn and subsequent duty demands based on perceived discrepancies in quality.

3. The Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) rejected the petitioners' claim for DEPB norms, citing the yarn's quality not meeting standard input-output norms. The petitioners contended that PRC's decision contradicted the statutory export-import policy, which only the Central Government could amend. They emphasized that the PRC's decision lacked jurisdiction to alter policy provisions, especially retrospectively affecting completed export obligations.

4. The court held that PRC's decision was administrative and lacked the authority to amend statutory export-import policy. Referring to a previous judgment, the court emphasized that PRC's actions could not override the exclusive powers of the Central Government in policy matters. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the PRC's decision void and unenforceable, especially considering completed export obligations.

5. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the PRC's decision and related demands, emphasizing the Central Government's exclusive authority in amending export-import policy. The judgment highlighted the importance of upholding statutory provisions and preventing administrative bodies from overstepping their jurisdiction, especially in retrospective policy applications.