2017 (1) TMI 787 - HC - Customs

EPCG scheme - failure to fulfill Export Obligation within 8 years as required - a change in the policy with regard to fulfillment of Export Obligation. Held that - the petitioner has filed a representation dated 26.08.2016, which, as indicated above, is pending consideration with the EPCG Committee - I am inclined to direct the EPCG Committee to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 26.08.2016, by way of a speaking order - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's representation not disposed of by EPCG Committee.

Analysis:
The petitioner was aggrieved by the non-disposal of its representation dated 26.08.2016 by the EPCG Committee. The petitioner had been issued an EPCG License to import capital goods with an export obligation to fulfill within eight years. However, the petitioner could only fulfill 30.19% of the total export obligation. The petitioner claimed that the inability to meet the export obligation initially was due to the ban on the export of edible oil imposed by the Government of India. A change in policy allowed for the fulfillment of export obligations by considering the export value of alternate products manufactured using the imported capital goods. Despite the petitioner's efforts, including appeals and representations, the matter remained unresolved. The court directed the EPCG Committee to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation by issuing a speaking order. The Committee was instructed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner's representative and refrain from taking coercive measures against the petitioner for four weeks until the representation was resolved.

This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in matters concerning representations and appeals. It underscores the need for administrative bodies like the EPCG Committee to consider and address representations promptly and fairly. The court's directive for a speaking order ensures transparency and accountability in decision-making processes. Additionally, the court's decision to grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order through appropriate legal remedies emphasizes the principle of access to justice and the right to seek redress through lawful means. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of upholding procedural justice and providing avenues for parties to seek recourse in legal matters.