2018 (12) TMI 176 - HC - Customs

Advance authorization - non-fulfillment of export obligation - it is alleged that in case of exports to SEZ (special Economic Zone), the petitioner had failed to produce bill of export - Held that - The question of relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy of an appeal in these facts does not arise. It may be pointed out that the petitioner had applied to the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) as far back as on 18th March, 2018 seeking relaxation of the requirement of submission of bill of exports for redemption of Advance Authorization. However, no action was taken on the same. The impugned order do not sustain - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order under Foreign Trade Act for failure to produce bill of export for exports to SEZ, reliance on binding court decisions, availability of alternative remedy of appeal, petitioner's application to Policy Relaxation Committee, direction for issuance of export discharge certificate.

The judgment by the High Court of Bombay pertains to a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Pune. The order in question negated the petitioner's claim of fulfilling its export obligation under an advance authorization due to the absence of a bill of export for exports to SEZ, resulting in a penalty imposition of ?1.96 crores. The petitioner contended that despite the missing bill of export, there were contemporaneous documents proving the supply of goods to SEZ, and cited binding court decisions in their favor on a similar issue.

The respondent argued that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court and an alternative appeal remedy was available under Section 15 of the Act. However, the Court noted that the issue had been conclusively decided by previous court judgments and was binding unless reversed or stayed by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had previously applied to the Policy Relaxation Committee seeking relief from the bill of export requirement, but no action was taken. The Court directed the respondent to issue an export application discharge certificate and allow redemption of the advance authorization certificate to the petitioner, following the precedent set by previous court decisions.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondent to issue the necessary certificate for redemption of the advance authorization. The Court highlighted that in light of the binding court decisions and the inaction of the Policy Relaxation Committee, there was no need to relegate the petitioner to an alternative appeal remedy. No costs were awarded in this matter.