9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 965 - HC - CustomsLegality and validity of decisions taken by the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) - non-submission of Bill of Export - rejection of request of Petitioner by holding that Bill of Export is a mandatory document in terms of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) for discharge of Export Obligation (EO) of Advance Authorisation (AA) - HELD THAT - The law as its stands today is that if the party is able to show the proof of supply to SEZ Unit, then non-submission of Bill of Export cannot be treated as non-discharge of proof of EO. It is submitted that the required documents will be submitted within two weeks. The same will be examined by Respondents and if the documents are in order, the EODC shall be issued within four weeks of the submissions of the documents. If Respondents have any query they shall give a personal hearing, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast 3 working days in advance. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of PRC decisions rejecting the petitioner's request. 2. Requirement of "Bill of Export" for discharge of Export Obligation (EO) under Advance Authorisation (AA). 3. Relaxation of the "Bill of Export" requirement by DGFT for supplies made to SEZ units prior to 01.07.2017. 4. Applicability of previous court judgments on similar issues. Detailed Analysis: P Legality and Validity of PRC Decisions: The petitioner challenged the decisions taken by the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) in meetings held on 21st June 2022 and 26th June 2023. The PRC rejected the petitioner's request for considering supplies to SEZ units as valid discharge of EO under AA due to the non-submission of "Bills of Export." The petitioner argued that the rejection was unjustified as other substantial evidence of export was provided. P Requirement of "Bill of Export": The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and exporting Non-Ferrous Metal Alloys, supplied goods to SEZ units but failed to submit "Bills of Export" due to an inadvertent error. Despite submitting all other relevant documents, including ARE-1 forms, the PRC maintained that the "Bill of Export" was mandatory under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) for discharging EO. The respondents argued that the submission of "Bill of Export" is a mandatory requirement for exports to SEZ units. P Relaxation by DGFT: A Policy Circular No. 4 of 2024 dated 3rd June 2024 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) relaxed the requirement of "Bill of Export" for supplies made to SEZ units prior to 01.07.2017. The circular allowed the submission of ARE-1 forms, evidence of receipt of supplies by the SEZ unit, and evidence of payment made by the SEZ unit as corroborative evidence in lieu of "Bill of Export." This relaxation covered 29 out of 37 supplies made by the petitioner, necessitating the issuance of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) for these supplies. P Applicability of Previous Judgments: The petitioner relied on the judgment in Larsen & Toubro Limited vs. Union of India, where the court held that the refusal to relax export obligations due to the absence of "Bill of Export" was unjustified if other substantial evidence of export was provided. The court emphasized that procedural lapses should be condoned if the petitioner could prove the fulfillment of EO through other documents. This judgment was followed in Electromech Material Handling System (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India & Ors., reinforcing that failure to produce a "Bill of Export" should not result in non-discharge of EO if other evidence is available. P Final Judgment: The court directed Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to issue EODC for the 29 supplies covered by the DGFT circular. For the remaining 8 supplies, the petitioner was instructed to submit ARE-1 forms, evidence of receipt by the SEZ unit, and evidence of payment within two weeks. The respondents were to examine these documents and issue the EODC within four weeks if the documents were in order. Any queries by the respondents would necessitate a personal hearing with at least three working days' notice. Consequently, the rule was made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), quashing and setting aside both impugned minutes of meetings. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
