9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 336 - HC - CustomsAdvance Authorizations - Relaxation in export obligation - supplies to SEZ - Minutes of a meeting / orders dated 29th August, 2016 and 6th July, 2017 of the Policy Relaxation Committee in the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade respondent no.3 - Held that - In the facts of this case, both the minutes of the meeting / orders dated 29th August, 2016 and the review order thereon dated 6th July, 2017 rejected the petitioner s application for relaxation only on account of failure to produce copy of bill of export of their supplies to SEZ. However, in the present facts, as in the earlier two cases party has been able to establish that supplies have been made to SEZ units i.e. M/s. Pipavav Shipyard Ltd. Ramapura, Gujarat and M/s. Hansen Drives Ltd. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. The impugned minutes of meeting / orders dated 29th August, 2016 and 6th July, 2017 are set aside - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to the minutes of a meeting/orders of the Policy Relaxation Committee regarding export obligations and issuance of Export Obligation Discharge Certificates. Analysis: The petitioner sought to challenge the minutes of a meeting/orders dated 29th August, 2016, and 6th July, 2017, of the Policy Relaxation Committee concerning the refusal to relax export obligations due to the absence of the assessed copy of the bill of export. This refusal led to the non-issuance of Export Obligation Discharge Certificates, hindering the petitioner's ability to redeem Advance Authorizations from specific dates. The petitioner argued that the decisions in Larsen and Tubro Ltd. and Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt. Ltd. favored their position, stating that the failure to produce a copy of the assessed bill of export does not automatically imply a failure to discharge export obligations if supplies to SEZ can be established through other means like copies of ARE-1. The Court acknowledged that the issue at hand had already been settled in favor of the petitioner in previous decisions, namely Larsen and Tubro Ltd. and Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt. Ltd. In those cases, it was established that the inability to produce a copy of the assessed bill of export does not necessarily indicate a failure to fulfill export obligations if the supply to SEZ can be proven through alternative documentation like copies of ARE-1. The Court noted that in the present case, the petitioner successfully demonstrated supplies to SEZ units, which were M/s. Pipavav Shipyard Ltd. in Gujarat and M/s. Hansen Drives Ltd. in Tamil Nadu. The respondents failed to present any distinguishing features in this case that would warrant a different outcome from the previous decisions. Consequently, the Court decided to set aside the impugned minutes of the meeting/orders dated 29th August, 2016, and 6th July, 2017. The respondent was directed to issue the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate, and another respondent was instructed to redeem the Advance Authorizations from specific dates mentioned in the petition. The Court's decision aligned with the reasoning and outcomes of the earlier judgments in Larsen and Tubro Ltd. and Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt. Ltd., leading to the disposal of the petition in favor of the petitioner.
|
