2016 (10) TMI 565 - HC - Customs

Refusal for allowing advance authorisation and a duty free import authorisation (DFIA) - Failure to fulfill export obligation - claim of unconditional relaxation - recognised Export House - It is evident from the petition itself that they aware of the defaults and which had occurred - Principles of natural justice - writ of certiorari - Held that - Once relaxation is not a right and nothing accrues in the petitioners favour to apply and seek unconditional relaxation, then, all the more we do not think that the exercise undertaken by the experts in the field and in charge of interpretation and implementation of the foreign trade policy should be interfered by us in our equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A person who has not been able to fulfill the obligations cannot insist on an unconditional relaxation or exemption - All imports and exports of more than one advance authorisation can be considered provided inputs are common and properly accorded for as per norms - also considered as to how the exercise of clubbing at the instance of the petitioners firstly enabled the petitioners to prolong the period for fulfillment of the export obligation and secondly, that the petitioners were aware that the first of such authorisation can be taken into consideration for relaxing the period within which the export obligation has to be completed - Petition dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and legality of the order dated 11th February, 2014, and related conditions.
2. Request for clubbing of two authorizations (July 2008 and March 2009) for compliance with export obligation.
3. Application of principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
4. Interpretation of the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and legality of the order dated 11th February, 2014, and related conditions:
The petitioners challenged the order dated 11th February, 2014, which imposed a condition that only exports made within 48 months from the date of the earliest authorization (up to 31st July, 2012) would be considered for export obligation fulfillment. The court found that the petitioners were aware of their defaults and had initially sought relaxation from conditions before applying for clubbing. The court held that the imposition of conditions by the Policy Relaxation Committee was justified and based on genuine hardship and adverse impact on trade. The Committee's decision to impose conditions was not arbitrary or without material basis.

2. Request for clubbing of two authorizations (July 2008 and March 2009) for compliance with export obligation:
The petitioners sought to club two authorizations to fulfill their export obligations, arguing that such clubbing would show no shortfall in their export obligations. The court noted that the Policy Relaxation Committee allowed the clubbing but imposed a condition that only exports made within 48 months from the date of the earliest authorization would be considered. The court upheld this condition, stating that the petitioners had already been granted an extension of 51 months to fulfill their obligations, and further unconditional relaxation was not warranted. The court emphasized that policy relaxation is not a right and must be granted on a case-by-case basis.

3. Application of principles of natural justice and procedural fairness:
The petitioners argued that the principles of natural justice were not followed, as their written submissions were allegedly not considered. The court found no merit in this argument, noting that the petitioners' representations were duly considered, and reasoned orders were passed. The court held that the sufficiency and adequacy of reasons provided in the orders were not matters for interference in writ jurisdiction. The court also rejected the petitioners' claim for a personal hearing, stating that no prejudice was demonstrated by the denial of an oral hearing.

4. Interpretation of the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures:
The petitioners relied on the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 and the Handbook of Procedures to argue that there was no provision for imposing the impugned condition. The court disagreed, stating that the Handbook of Procedures is a procedural manual, and a liberal interpretation of procedural rules is permissible. The court emphasized that the power to grant relaxation is discretionary and must be exercised on a case-by-case basis, taking into account genuine hardship and the likely adverse impact on trade. The court concluded that the Policy Relaxation Committee's decision to impose conditions while granting relaxation was within its discretionary powers and based on relevant considerations.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioners' claims. The court upheld the conditions imposed by the Policy Relaxation Committee, stating that the petitioners were not entitled to unconditional relaxation or exemption. The court emphasized that policy relaxation is discretionary and must be granted based on genuine hardship and adverse impact on trade. The court also found that the principles of natural justice were duly followed, and the petitioners' representations were considered in reasoned orders.