9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the past. Pursuant to the FTP 2009-2014 status holder is entitled to a Duty Credit Scrip @ 1% of FOB value of exports made during 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. This shall be over and above any Duty Credit Scrip claimed/availed under this chapter. The scrip could be used for import of capital goods in the specified sector for which the scheme is applicable. The petitioner operates as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) licenced and approved by the Government of India vide letter of approval in LOP No.A/2003/022/EOUTN dated 02.05.2003. The Petitioner are manufacturers and exporters of Thermoplastic High Pressure Hoses and have been conferred with a "Stat Export House" status by the appropriate authority vide certificate bearing No.A/2003/22/EOU-TN dated 10.06.2010 as recognition of export performance. 2.b. The Petitioner is an exporter of Thermoplastic High Pressure Hoses to various countries and the same is a sector which is eligible for the benefits of availing SHIS. The Petitioner have not availed the benefit of any Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme ('EPCG')) under the FTP during the year 2011-12 and the same is not under dispute. Being eligible for the incent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... external influence (usually head and pressure, if necessary with a solvent or plasticiser) by mounding, casting, extruding, rolling or other process into shapes which are retained on the removal of the external influence. In the light of the above, this case has got no merit for consideration as they have exported the product falling under ITC HS Code 39173100. 3.c. The Petitioner has challenged vide their letter dated 14.01.2015 to the Respondent office that there exist no such provision in FTP restricting the benefits to plastic products classifiable under 3901 to 3914 and the relevant provision only prescribes that products classifiable under plastic sector are eligible for the status holder benefit. According to the Respondent, the expression "Plastic" means those materials of headings 3901 to 3914 under Sl.No.1 under Notes in Chapter 39 of ITC HS Classification. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4.a. In the rejoinder the Petitioner denying the entire counter affiidavit. It is stated in the rejoinder that the Petitioner vide letter dated 14.01.2015 submitted that there is no provision under FTP restricting the benefit of SHIS to plastic products falling in S.No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SHIS since the petitioner had exported Thermoplastic Yarn Praided Hose Pipe, Thermoplastic aramid & Braided Hose Pipe under the ITC HS Code 39173100. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that such a contrary stand has been taken in the counter for the first time. It is his further contention that the letter dated 19.9.2014 itself the Respondent admitted that the Petitioner's product comes under "Plastics Sector" and not under the "Engineering Sector" and in the letter dated 30.12.2014 also they have admitted that though Plastics is also included at Para 3.16.4(v) of FTP, the Plastics from S.Nos.3901 to 3914 only will be allowed. According to the learned counsel that the clarification issued by the DGFT is contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy. It is his contention that as per para 2.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2019-14 DGFT can pass any clarification when any question or doubt arises in respect of interpretation of any provisions contained in FTP, or classification of any item in ITC (HS) or HBP-v1 or HBP-v2. Such being the position when there is no ambiguity in the policy DGFTcannot rewrite the policy by clarification when admittedly the Forei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al High Court) High Court of Kerala] has held that the notification issued by the DGFT is valid in law. 7. I have perused all the materials. 8.The Petitioner challenged the impugned order rejecting the incentives claimed as per the Foreign Trade Policy.The impugned order passed by the Respondent on the ground, since the Petitioner is 100% EOU, is not entitled for incentives. Whereas for the first time in the counter new ground has been canvassed that though the Plastics have been included in the Foreign Trade Policy only certain category of the plastics i.e.,7 serial number alone are eligible for the incentives. It is relevant to note that it is not disputed that the Petitioner exporting the plastics. In this regard it is relevant to extract the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 came into effect on 05.06.2012. In Para 3.16.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy it is stated as follows: 3.16.4 Status Holders of the following Sectors shall be eligible for the Status Holders Incentive Scrip (SHIS): (i) Leather Sector (excluding finished leather (ii) Textiles and Jute Sector. (iii) Handicrafts: (iv) Engineering Sector (excluding Iron & Steel, Nonferrous Metals in primary or intermediate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 of the Act. Therefore Section 6 makes it clear that power to amend the policy is with Government as per Section 5 of the Act. The policy referred above is formulated by the Central Government wherein Plastics sector also included to claim certain benefits. Paragraph 2.3 of the FTP 2004-09 as well as the paragraph 2.3 of the FTP 2009-14 contemplate that questions and/or doubts in respect of the interpretation of any provision of the Foreign Trade Policy would be referred to DGFT whose decision would be final and binding, in respect of such questions. Therefore, in the absence of any amendment in the Foreign Trade Policy the main point will arise whether the DGFT by Circular can rewrite the policy or amend the policy. When the policy provides for incentive for entire Plastics sector whether that can be restricted to the particular Serial Number. As per Section 5 of the FTDR Act, 1992, which makes very clear that to amend the policy is always with the Central Government. Such a power has not been granted to the DGFT as per Section 6 of the Act. 13. In this regard it is useful to refer the judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/s.Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd case (supra) wherein in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions and restrictions which were not to be found therein. What the PIC has effectively done is to dovetail para 3.6.4.1 of the FTP 2004-2009 into para 3.6.4.2 thereof. Such an exercise is totally untenable in law. If the framers of the FTP intended to subject the entitlement, or the eligibility, to benefits under the SFIS, by the objective thereof, the framers ought to have expressly done so. This, having not been done by the framers of the policy, cannot be done by its interpreter. The interpreter of the law cannot be wiser than the framer thereof." 15. Considering the powers of DGFP, it is only given power to clarify the doubts raised as to the interpretation of Policy, taking such powers he cannot amend the very Policy itself. Though much reliance has been placed to the notification issued by the DGFP was upheld by the Calcutta High Court and Kerala High Court, the above case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Notification in the above cases are in different context not in respect of amending the very policy conditions itself. 16. Similarly, it is also submitted that the Central Government has notified Authentication (Orders and other Instruments) Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
