9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judgment]. Both petitions involved more or less similar issues and are consequently being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The facts in WP (C) 9987 of 2006 are that the Petitioner, a proprietary concern and a merchant-exporter exported various automotive components during the year 1992-94. It is stated that by virtue of the said export, the Petitioner became entitled to claim benefit under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (TPR Scheme ) formulated by the Government of India in 1981 to compensate manufacturers and exporters of automotive components with respect to the differential in price of various raw materials like steel, alloy steel, etc. as they existed internationally and in India. Under the IPR Scheme, a merchant-exporter was eligible to claim price reimbursement against consumption of specified raw material in the engineering goods exported from India. A claim had to be submitted by the merchant-exporter in the manner prescribed by the Hand Book issued by the Respondent Engineering Export Promotion Council ( EEPC ). The Petitioner submitted claims amounting to Rs. 25,88,304 to the EEPC during the year February 1992 to February 1994. 3. It is stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court disposed of the petitions and directed that the EEPC should verify the claims in accordance with the schemes framed under the Exim policy within two months and pay the amounts to which they may be found entitled on such verification. 7. Subsequent to the judgment dated 21st April 2003, the EEPC wrote a letter dated 17th June 2003 to the Directorate General of Foreign Trade ( DGFT ), seeking clarification whether the payment claims pending with the EEPC could be given effect to and the amounts released to the claimants. The EEPC also filed CM No. 7106 of 2003 in the disposed of W.P. (C) No. 6680 of 2001 seeking extension of time to comply with the order dated 21st April 2003. The said application was disposed of by an order dated 25th June 2003 by the learned Single Judge of this Court extending the time for verification of the claims by another two months. 8. The further application being CM/RA No. 8357 of 2003 filed by the EEPC before the learned Single Judge stated that since the Petitioners had not furnished requisite information for their claims, they could not be verified and, therefore, further extension was sought to comply with the order dated 21st April 2003. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claims of the Petitioner within three months. In para 4 of the said order, it was observed as under : Learned Single Judge has specifically observed that the claims will be settled on verification. It goes without saying that verification has to be in accordance with law and would include a right to the appellant to seek clarification from the writ Petitioners. 11. By a letter dated 6th April 2005, the EEPC required the Petitioners to submit the following documents : (a) Customs Certified Invoices; (b) Bank Realization Certificate; (c) Customs Certified Packing List, and; (d) Test Certificate 12. The above letter was replied to by the Petitioners on 11th April 2005 stating that we have no documents other than the documents that were submitted to you as required under the IPR Scheme. A further demand for the said documents was made by the EEPC by its letter dated 18th April 2005. The Petitioners again replied on 21st April 2005 maintaining that the High Court had not directed the Petitioners to submit any document and that it was for the EEPC to take a decision on their claims. 13. On 25th April 2005, the EEPC wrote a detailed letter rejecting th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the six Customs Certified Invoices available with it. It was submitted that the EEPC was acting arbitrarily in declining to make payments despite the Petitioners having submitted all the documents. 16. Appearing for the EEPC, Mr. Amit S. Chadha, learned Senior counsel submitted that the requirements under the IPR Scheme read with the Handbook were specific and unambiguous. It was mandatory for the claimant to give a whole set of documentation including the Customs Certified Invoices, Test Certificates, Customs Certified Packing Lists and the Bank Realisation Certificates. Admittedly, the Petitioners could not produce the above documents despite repeated requests made by the EEPC. Even as regards the available six Customs Certified Invoices, payments could not be made till such time the corresponding Bank Realisation Certificates, Customs Certified Packing Lists and Test Certificates were not produced. 17. The above submissions have been considered by this Court. A perusal of the IPR Scheme together with the Handbook makes it abundantly clear that without a claimant producing the required documentation, it would not be possible for the EEPC to process the claim. It appears to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
