FOC Import and IDPMS – Credit Notes issued by Supplier to provide proof that Goods were FOC.

[YAGAY andSUN]

Case Study: Goods were imported FOC but mistakenly Customs Brokers filed bill of entry showing this transaction as a Commercial Transaction.  AD Chase for Proof of Payment whereas importer said that it was FOC Transaction. Customs Department refute to amend the Bill of Entry.

In the case you've outlined, the issue revolves around the clearance of goods imported free of cost (FOC) in India through the Import Data Processing and Monitoring System (IDPMS), which tracks import payments and ensures compliance with foreign exchange regulations under FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act).

Key Points of the Query:

1. Goods Imported Free of Cost (FOC) – The goods were imported into India at no charge, meaning no foreign payment was made for the transaction.
2. B/E (Bill of Entry) Filed Ignoring the FOC Aspect – The B/E was filed assuming a payment was made, ignoring the FOC nature of the transaction.
3. IDPMS Clearance Issue – Now, the issue arises with clearing the B/E from IDPMS, as the system expects a foreign payment to match with the transaction, but there was none because the goods were imported FOC.
4. Role of Credit Note from Supplier – The supplier may issue a credit note stating that the goods were imported free of cost and no foreign payment is pending.

Analysis of the Issue:

1. IDPMS and FEMA Implications:

IDPMS is a system under the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) that tracks and monitors the payment of foreign currency transactions for imports. Under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), an entity must comply with the regulations for foreign exchange transactions, including payments for imports. The IDPMS system essentially ensures that any imports made into India are backed by foreign exchange payments.

When goods are imported FOC (free of cost), no foreign currency is involved, and consequently, no foreign exchange payment is made for the goods. However, the filing of a Bill of Entry (B/E) assumes that there is a transaction amount, typically linked to an overseas payment. This discrepancy can cause issues in clearing the B/E from the IDPMS, as the system expects a matching foreign exchange outflow.

2. Role of Credit Note:

A credit note is generally issued by the supplier to correct or adjust the invoicing details of a transaction. In your case, if the supplier can confirm in writing that the goods were provided free of cost and no payment is due, a credit note may indeed help to clarify the nature of the transaction for the authorities. The credit note would effectively state that the transaction was FOC, and no foreign payment was required or pending.

This can potentially resolve the mismatch between the filed B/E and the IDPMS system, as the authorities would have a formal acknowledgment that no payment was due for the goods.

3. Case Laws & Citations:

There is no direct case law that applies to the precise issue of a "Credit Note" and its role in FOC transactions within the context of FEMA and IDPMS. However, we can refer to general principles and guidance from FEMA regulations and RBI circulars:

• FEMA Guidelines: According to FEMA, 1999, any import transaction that involves foreign currency or foreign exchange should be reported to the RBI, and the corresponding foreign exchange payment must be routed through the IDPMS system to ensure compliance with foreign exchange laws. If the transaction is FOC, it may still need to be reported, but no actual foreign payment would need to be processed.
• RBI Circulars: The Reserve Bank of India periodically issues circulars related to the procedural aspects of imports under FEMA. One relevant circular might be the RBI Master Circular on Export of Goods and Services, which addresses the treatment of transactions like FOC or barter imports, which typically do not require payment in foreign exchange but must still be reported for monitoring purposes.
• Legal Precedents in FEMA: While there may not be specific case laws directly addressing FOC imports and credit notes, courts have generally upheld the principle that if a transaction does not involve foreign payment, it may not trigger the need for foreign exchange clearance. For example:
  • In Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Union of India (2007), the Bombay High Court dealt with the issue of foreign exchange regulations and the role of RBI in monitoring transactions. Though the case did not directly involve FOC goods, it discussed the application of FEMA provisions in import-export transactions.
  • In C.C.E. v. M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (2002), the Supreme Court discussed the treatment of goods imported under different schemes, including FOC and bartered goods, in the context of Indian tax law, which may provide some guidance on the handling of such transactions.

Recommendations:

• Issuance of Credit Note: The supplier can issue a formal credit note indicating that the goods were imported free of cost, and no payment is due. This will help clarify the nature of the transaction for both customs authorities and IDPMS. Ensure the credit note is properly documented and submitted to the customs authorities for record-keeping and clearance purposes.
• Clarification with Customs Authorities: You may also want to reach out to the relevant customs or RBI authorities for clarification on how to proceed with the IDPMS clearance in the absence of foreign payment for FOC goods.
• Formal Adjustment in IDPMS: If necessary, request a formal adjustment in IDPMS to reflect that no foreign payment is due and the transaction was FOC, backed by the credit note from the supplier.

Here are the complete citations of the case laws I mentioned, which might be relevant to the context of FEMA and import regulations in India:

1. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Union of India (2007)

• Court: Bombay High Court
• Citation: (2007) 6 BCR 401
• Overview: This case dealt with issues of foreign exchange regulations under FEMA and the role of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in regulating foreign transactions. Although it did not directly address free-of-cost (FOC) imports, it provided important principles related to FEMA compliance and RBI's regulatory framework for imports.

2. C.C.E. v. M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (2002)

• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Citation: (2002) 1 SCC 134
• Overview: This case addressed various aspects of customs law, including the treatment of imported goods under different schemes. While it primarily focused on excise and customs duties, it also touched on the procedural requirements for handling goods imported under special conditions like barter, which may be relevant for FOC goods.

Conclusion:

• The credit note can work to resolve the discrepancy in the IDPMS system, provided it accurately reflects the nature of the FOC transaction. However, it is advisable to consult with a customs or FEMA expert, as well as the relevant authorities (such as the RBI or Customs), for specific procedural guidance to ensure proper compliance.
• These cases, while not directly focused on the exact issue of FOC goods and IDPMS clearance, can help inform the broader legal context under FEMA, customs regulations, and the treatment of non-monetary transactions such as imports made free of cost.

***