2020 (3) TMI 533 - HC - Customs

Condonation of procedural lapse of supplying goods to SEZ only under ARE-1 without Bills of Exports - advance authorization scheme - deemed exports - petitioner claims that due to an inadvertent error, the Bills of Exports were not filed - HELD THAT - the Bill of Export is an essential document to be submitted for claiming discharge of export obligation under the Advance Authorization. Besides, petitioner s statement of having worked and manufactured boxes for the past 39 years further weakens his claim in the petition. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner supplied goods only under cover of ARE-1 and not with Bill of Export except for it being an inadvertent mistake. A market player in business for this long would be expected to comply with formalities and file all relevant documents timely. As is evident from the reading of the Paragraph 2.5 of the FTP, exemption from following policy/procedure can be granted only in cases of genuine hardship or adverse impact on trade or in public interest. It is not applicable for cases where the exporters, even bonafide, are not vigilant or are lax in compliance with the mandatory conditions. The onus cannot be shifted to the Authorities in such cases to retrospectively determine if the petitioner had otherwise complied with all conditions of Advance Authorization. Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of procedural lapse in supplying goods to SEZ units without Bills of Exports.
2. Issuance of Redemption Certificate under Advance Authorization.
3. Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226.
4. Compliance with Foreign Trade Policy, Handbook of Procedure, and SEZ Rules.
5. Validity of PRC's decision.
6. Comparison with similar cases and precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Procedural Lapse:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to condone the procedural lapse of supplying goods to SEZ units under ARE-1 without Bills of Exports. The petitioner admitted the mistake but argued that sufficient proof had been provided to show fulfillment of export obligations, including ARE-1 forms, affidavits, Chartered Accountant certificates, and Bank Realization Certificates. The PRC, however, did not accept these documents as substitutes for the prescribed Bills of Exports.

2. Issuance of Redemption Certificate:
The petitioner requested the issuance of a Redemption Certificate for Advance Authorization, claiming compliance with export obligations. The PRC rejected this request, stating that the petitioner failed to submit the required Bills of Exports and other prescribed documents, which are essential to prove that duty-free imported goods were used in the resultant products supplied to SEZ units.

3. Jurisdiction under Article 226:
The respondents argued that the Court's power under Article 226 is limited and does not extend to relaxing conditions in the Handbook of Procedure, which is the exclusive domain of the PRC. The Court agreed, stating it could not interfere unless the PRC's decision was found to be perverse, arbitrary, or unreasonable.

4. Compliance with Foreign Trade Policy, Handbook of Procedure, and SEZ Rules:
The Court examined relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy, Handbook of Procedure, and SEZ Rules. It highlighted that the Bill of Export is a crucial document for claiming discharge of export obligations. The petitioner admitted to not submitting the Bill of Export and sought exemption under Paragraph 2.5 of the FTP, which allows for relaxation only in cases of genuine hardship or public interest. The Court found that the petitioner’s lapse did not qualify for such exemption.

5. Validity of PRC's Decision:
The PRC's decision was scrutinized, and the Court found no infirmity. The PRC had previously rejected the petitioner's claim due to insufficient corroborating evidence. Upon reconsideration, the PRC maintained its stance, emphasizing that the certificate from the Superintendent, Central Excise, could not replace the required documents. The Court upheld the PRC's decision, noting that it was neither perverse nor arbitrary.

6. Comparison with Similar Cases:
The petitioner relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Larsen & Toubro Limited vs. Union of India, where a similar procedural lapse was condoned. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that in Larsen & Toubro, the claim was verified by relevant authorities, whereas, in the present case, the petitioner’s documents were self-serving and lacked such verification. Additionally, the Court referenced its own judgment in Holoflex Limited, which emphasized the importance of filing Bills of Exports.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented. The decision of the PRC was upheld, and the petitioner’s request for condonation of procedural lapse and issuance of Redemption Certificate was denied. No costs were ordered.

← Previous Next →