2016 (9) TMI 1092 - HC - Customs

Scope of review in review petition - denial of deemed export benefits if the Bill of Entry is in the name of the project authority - monetary claim in the writ petition - review petition on the ground that decision is erroneous - maintainability - can the scope of the review to the extent desired by the senior counsel for the petitioner/review applicant be widened which may have far reaching ramifications affecting the justice delivery system? - Held that - the decision in the case The State of West Bengal Versus Kamal Sengupta and another 2008 (6) TMI 578 - Supreme Court Of India is relied upon. The counsel for the petitioner at the outset only sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to file review petition and which permission was granted. The fact that the petitioner was also granted liberty to, if remaining aggrieved, again question the judgment, does not entitle the petitioner/review applicant to a wider consideration than is permissible in review jurisdiction. No ground found for review - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Deemed Export Benefits (DEB).
2. Competence of the authority issuing the decision.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition.
4. Limitation period for filing the claim.
5. Relevance of precedent cases.
6. Grounds for review under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Deemed Export Benefits (DEB):
The petitioner challenged the orders dated 21st March 2011, which denied DEB because the Bill of Entry was in the name of the project authority. The petitioner sought a direction to grant DEB amounting to ?72 crores.

2. Competence of the Authority Issuing the Decision:
The petitioner argued that the decision dated 15th March 2011 was not made by a competent authority. The senior counsel contended that this was an error apparent on the face of the judgment dated 12th August 2014, which dismissed the writ petition. The court examined the relevant pleadings, Section 16 of The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and relevant judgments to address this issue.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The original judgment dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that it was essentially a monetary claim, which is generally not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court reiterated that the writ petition was not an appropriate remedy for enforcing a civil liability.

4. Limitation Period for Filing the Claim:
The court held that the petition was barred by time under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The repeated representations by the petitioner did not extend the limitation period. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not revive a stale claim merely because another similarly situated party succeeded.

5. Relevance of Precedent Cases:
The petitioner relied on the judgment dated 26th February 2014 in the case of Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, arguing that their claim should not be barred by delay since another similarly placed party had succeeded. The court also considered other judgments cited by the petitioner, including ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory, but found them not applicable to the present case.

6. Grounds for Review under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The court examined whether the review petition met the criteria under Order XLVII of the CPC, which allows for review in cases of discovery of new and important evidence or error apparent on the face of the record. The court found no such error or new evidence. The arguments presented were already considered in the original judgment, and the review petition was seen as an attempt to retrieve a lost case.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was no ground for review. The original judgment's reasoning was upheld, and the petitioner's arguments were found insufficient to warrant a different conclusion. The review petition and the intervention application by M/s Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. were both dismissed. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the credibility of the judicial system and avoiding the perception that judges can change their opinions based on repeated arguments.

← Previous Next →