2022 (2) TMI 748 - HC - Customs

Seeking direction to respondents to process the 47 applications filed and issue the duty credit scrips to the Applicant under the Focus Product Scheme (FPS) - HELD THAT - The Respondent No.3 has not complied with the Order dated 29th July 2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LARSEN TOUBRO LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2021 (7) TMI 1310 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . The Respondent No.3 ought to have considered and processed all those 47 applications and to take a final decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the authorized officer of the Applicant. We do not propose to initiate any action under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the Respondent No.3 for non compliance of the Order passed by this Court at this stage, since this Court proposes to direct the Respondent No.3 to process the remaining 46 applications and to take a final decision on those applications in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the authorized Officer of the Applicant, if not excluded by any express provision of law or by necessary implication. The Respondent No.3 shall consider and process the remaining 46 applications and to take a final decision thereon in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the authorized Officer of the Applicant, if not excluded by any express provision of law or by necessary implication, within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order without being influenced by the observations made in the communication dated 22nd October 2021 and the conclusions drawn therein - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Implementation of court order for processing duty credit scrips under the Focus Product Scheme (F.P.S.), compliance with the court order by Respondent No.3, consideration of applications, late cut imposition, appealability of orders, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, directions to process remaining applications, consideration of Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures, communication of orders to the Applicant, liberty to file proceedings, granting consequential benefits.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an Interim Application seeking an Order against the Respondents to implement a previous court order dated 29th July 2021 in a Writ Petition. The Applicant requested the processing of 47 applications for duty credit scrips under the Focus Product Scheme. The Applicant argued that the Respondent No.3 did not comply with the previous court order, which directed the processing of these applications within a specified timeframe and in accordance with the law. The Respondent No.3 had only decided on 46 out of 47 applications, leading to the current application before the court.

The Applicant's counsel highlighted various correspondences and provisions under the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures, emphasizing the need for the Respondent to consider all applications, even those filed after the prescribed date, by imposing a late cut as per the provision. On the other hand, the Respondent's Senior Counsel stated that an Order had been passed, indicating that applications submitted up to a certain date would be considered, and this Order was appealable.

The Court, after considering the arguments, found that the Respondent No.3 had not fully complied with the previous court order. The Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings at that stage but directed the Respondent to process the remaining 46 applications within a month, giving the Applicant's authorized officer an opportunity to be heard. The Court also instructed the Respondent to consider the relevant provision of the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures while making decisions on these applications.

Additionally, the Court clarified that the Applicant need not file a fresh petition and directed the communication of the decision to the Applicant promptly. The Applicant was granted the liberty to file proceedings if an adverse order was passed, and if the decision favored the Applicant, consequential benefits were to be provided within two weeks. The Interim Application was allowed, and the parties were instructed to act on an authenticated copy of the Order.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the non-compliance of a court order by the Respondent, provided directions for processing the remaining applications, and emphasized the importance of following the relevant policy provisions while making decisions on such matters.