9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have allowed the Petitioner s appeal - HELD THAT:- In the present case, there is no dispute that Respondent No.3- Additional Director General of Foreign Trade who passed the impugned order was satisfied that the Petitioner has fulfilled the export obligation but he denied the benefit of export obligation to the Petitioner only on the ground of non-furnishing of bill of export. This view taken by the impugned order is contrary to the binding decision of this Court upheld by the Supreme Court. The distinction made in the impugned order is that the decision of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA ORS. ETC. VERSUS LARSEN AND TOURBO LIMITED ETC. [ 2019 (4) TMI 1717 - SC ORDER] is based on the facts of that particular case, ignoring the rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. P.C. : Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. At the request of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 18 July 2019 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade under the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 (Act). The impugned order rejects the Petitioner s contention of having fulfilled its export obligation in terms of Advance Authorization No.311003485 dated 6 November 2007 (said Advance Authorization) in respect of supplies made to Special Economic Zone (SEZ). Thus, seeking a direction that the Petitioner has satisfied its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents issued a deficiency memo on 11 August 2014 viz. absence of bill of export in discharge of export obligation. 5. The Petitioner could not respond to the deficiency memo, as it was not received. Thereafter the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Respondent No.4 issued a show cause notice on 9 August 2018, seeking to impose penalty under the Act for failure to fulfill obligation of export under the said Advance Authorization. The Petitioner was heard and thereafter by his order dated 25 September 2018, Respondent No.4 held that in the absence of bill of export being filed in respect of goods supplied to SEZ, the petitioner cannot be said to have fulfilled export obligation. In the above view, the order dated 25 September ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing and after due application of mind, I find that the appellant has fulfilled the export obligation as they have submitted photocopies of ARE-1, Commercial Invoices, Certificate of Payments for Domestic Supplies (BRC). But they have not submitted Bills of Exports which are required for redemption/closure of the case. The Order of the Supreme Court in the SLP No.2330/2018 is based on the facts of that particular case only and does not give exemption to others. In view of the above, and in the interest of natural justice, I, in exercise of powers vested in me, under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992, as amended, pass the following order: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the same for failure/ non-supply of bill of export. This issue is no longer res integra as this Court in Larsen Toubro Limited v. Union of India; Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India and Electromech Material Handling System India Pvt.Ltd. v. The Union of India and others (all cited supra) has taken a view that non-availability of bill of export would not by itself lead to denial of benefit of fulfillment of export obligation, if the export to SEZ can be evidenced by other contemporaneous documents. 10. In the present case, there is no dispute that Respondent No.3- Additional Director General of Foreign Trade who passed the impugned order was satisfied that the Petitioner has fulfilled the export obligat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt- Director General of Foreign Trade for issuance of MEIS scrip which the Petitioner could not do as it was put on Denied Entity List on 8 June 2018, in respect of exports made during the period 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Petitioner has stated that on-line applications can be made within a period of three year for issuance of MEIS scrip on the basis of exports made. However, as the Petitioner was put on Denied Entity List on 8 June 2018 and continued to be so till 19 August 2019 when the Petitioner s name was deleted. Therefore, the Petitioner would not now be in a position to file an application for MEIS scrip on-line. This as the system would not accept it. Therefore, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 would accept a hard copy of the Petitioner s appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
