2023 (3) TMI 1336 - HC - Customs

EPCG Scheme - non-fulfilment of export obligation - petitioner mainly contended that the circular No.7/2002 is applicable to the case of the petitioner and the petitioner has already submitted all the relevant documents and thus, there is no reason, whatsoever, to reject the claim of the petitioner based on the said circular No.7/2002 - HELD THAT - On consideration of clause (v) of the policy scheme No.7/2002, which reads as this would be subject to the condition that the relevant shipping bills contain both the names of the 3rd party(s) and the license holder . Therefore, the exemption is subject to the condition that the relevant shipping bills containing both the names of the 3rd party and the license holder must be produced. The findings of the authority in the impugned order with reference to condition (v) is that condition (v) of policy circular No.7/2002 dated 11.07.2002 clearly states that, condonation of procedural lapse of not mentioning EPCG license number and date on third party shipping bills relating to the exports for fulfilment of EO under EPCG scheme may be allowed, subject to the condition that the relevant shipping bills contain both the names of the 3rd party(s) and the license holder. The findings are to be read with reference to the conditions imposed in the policy scheme. The conditions imposed in the policy scheme is unambiguous that the relevant shipping bills should contain both the names of the 3rd party and the license holder. The findings of the competent authority reveals that in order to relax the conditions, EPCG license number, date of the license and the name of the EPCG license holder should be endorsed in the shipping bills. However, the authority found that the petitioner repeatedly failed to file the copies of the shipping bills relating to the 3rd party exports made by them - In respect of the opportunity granted, the petitioner could not establish the same through documents and thus, the authorities had no option but to reject the claim of the writ petitioner to grant of exemption. It is not as if the authorities have not considered the case of the writ petitioner, the authorities have gone into the documents filed by the petitioner and admitted to call out an opportunity in order to comply with clause (v) of the police scheme. Since, the requisite particulars are not available in the documents produced by the petitioner, they were not able to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of exemption positively. This being the factum, the case of the petitioner is to be considered only if the shipping bills contain these particulars and are produced before the authorities along with the application and not otherwise. This Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order passed by the respondents - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the quashing of an order passed by the Director General of Foreign Trade, concerning the fulfillment of export obligations under an EPCG license.

Summary:
1. The petitioner was issued an EPCG license for import, with specific export obligations to be fulfilled within a set timeframe. The petitioner sought extensions for fulfilling the export obligation due to various reasons, including third-party exports.
2. A demand notice was issued to the petitioner for non-fulfillment of export obligations, leading to the petitioner being declared as defaulters. Subsequent representations and appeals were made by the petitioner to reconsider the case.
3. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the decisions made by the authorities, which led to a series of legal proceedings and orders for reconsideration.
4. The main contention of the petitioner was that the circular applicable to their case had been complied with, and all relevant documents were submitted. The rejection was based on the failure to comply with a specific clause in the policy scheme.
5. The legal issue revolved around the interpretation of the policy circular and the requirement of specific details on shipping bills for third-party exports to fulfill the export obligations.
6. The court considered previous judgments and observed that the petitioner should have the opportunity to explain and establish their case through supporting documents, as long as all necessary details were provided.
7. The authorities maintained that the petitioner failed to fulfill a crucial condition outlined in the policy circular, despite multiple opportunities provided to do so.
8. Ultimately, the court found no infirmity in the authorities' decision to reject the petitioner's claim for exemption, as the necessary particulars were not available in the documents produced.
9. The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed, with the connected miscellaneous petition also being closed.