9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement to Export House Certificate as a Manufacturer-Exporter-SSI for 1984-85. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, initially an exporter of readymade garments, started manufacturing and exporting garments in 1981. They held a provisional certificate as a small scale industrial unit, which was later made permanent in June 1984. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports rejected the petitioner's application for an Export House License for 1984-85, citing the provisional nature of their previous certificate and failure to meet the growth rate requirement of 20% as per Para 180 of the Import Policy. The petitioner's subsequent representations were also rejected based on the growth rate criterion, without considering their permanent registration certificate issued by the Director of Industries, U.P. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the grant of an Export House Certificate as a Manufacturer-Exporter-SSI for 1984-85, along with consequential benefits and relief, while challenging the rejection orders of June 21, 1984, and February 26, 1985. The court highlighted the objective of the Export Policy to encourage exports and earn foreign exchange, emphasizing the need to support both manufacturing and non-manufacturing exporters. Paragraph 176 of the Import Policy recognized the eligibility of manufacturers for Export House Certificates, subject to specified criteria. The court noted that the petitioner, as a manufacturer-exporter of select products, met the export value requirements outlined in Para 176. The petitioner's export figures for the preceding three years demonstrated compliance with the eligibility criteria, as admitted by the respondents. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the Export House Certificate as a Manufacturer Exporter based on the fulfillment of requirements under Para 176. The court criticized the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports for disregarding the petitioner's permanent registration certificate and incorrectly treating the application as one for renewal instead of a fresh grant. The court explained that the authorities erred in applying Para 180 of the Policy, which pertained to renewal applications for specific periods, not fresh applications. By focusing on growth criteria meant for renewals, the authorities misinterpreted the scheme's objective, which aimed to support both traders and manufacturing exporters. The court held that the rejection orders were invalid, as they failed to consider crucial evidence and misapplied the relevant provisions of the Import Policy. In conclusion, the court quashed the impugned orders of June 21, 1984, and February 26, 1985, directing the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to issue the Export House Certificate to the petitioner as a Manufacturer Exporter-SSI for 1984-85. The court found the petitioner compliant with Para 176 of the Import-Export Policy and allowed the petition with costs awarded to the petitioner's counsel.
|
