9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the and Madhur R. Baya, for the petitioners. S/Shri A.J. Rane, Sr. Counsel with P.S. Jetly, D.A. Dubey and H.P. Chaturvedi, for the Respondents. [Judgment per: F.I. Rebello, J. (Oral)]. - Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner company is in the business of manufacture and export of Rayon Viscose Filament Yarn, hereinafter referred to as the Yarn having its factory at Shahad, District Thane. Chapter 4 of the Export-Import Policy for the period April 1992 to March, 1997, hereinafter referred to as the said Policy, contained the Duty Exemption and Remission inter alia provided for issue of advance licenses for duty free import of the raw materials/inputs against export obligation. The petitioners were issued several advance lice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere completed by the Customs Authorities. In the course of auditing/logging the Customs Authorities accepted all the exports made by the petitioners, but demanded duty on the alleged excess quantity imported by the petitioners. This demand of customs duty along with the interest in respect of the said license was also paid by the petitioners. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the yarn undergoes various processes in the course of manufacture thereof and there are different specifications for the said yarn. These specifications are known, accepted and well recognised in the international market. There are different grades of quality, and each quality has a different price. These different grades in turn are based on different spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y were not in a position to submit the required documents to substantiate their claim. Inspite of the explanation by show cause notice dated 18 th June, 2003 in respect of advance license No.03201698 and notice dated 31 st May, 2004 in respect of advance license No.03200800 the respondent No.2 alleged non-completion of export obligation and accordingly called on the petitioners to show cause as to why the fiscal penalty should not be imposed upon them along with their Directors in terms of Section 11 of the said Act. 6. Between 7 th March, 2005 and 26 th April, 2005 in view of the completion of audit and/or logging by the Customs Authorities the petitioners submitted all the relevant documents to the Licensing Authority for issuance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact of the matter remains that the said yarn exported by the petitioners is the same as required under the said licenses read with the DEEC Books whereby the said yarn exported answers the description and is the same as Rayon Viscose Filament Yarn. After hearing the Foreign Trade Development Officer by two separate letters informed the petitioners to deduct the shipping bills for sub-standard goods and requested the petitioners to pay duty on the quantity of 196.04 metric tonnes in case of the said license dated 12 th December, 1995 and on 163.90 metric tonnes in case of the said license dated 28 th March, 1996 and returned all original documents to the petitioners. The petitioners requested for considering the representation made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to refer to the other averments as the petitioners claim has been rejected in view of the decision taken by PRC. 8. At the hearing of this petition the submission of the petitioners is that once there is an export policy which is notified, it is not open to any person including P RC to issue and/or take any decision contrary to the said policy. The said policy can only be amended by the Government. In the instant case the Policy which is statutory in character was binding on the respondents and they could not have taken the decision contrary to the said policy. On that count alone the decision communicated is liable to be quashed and set aside. In the alternative it is submitted that even assuming without admitting that it was open to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the recommendations of what is described as PRC. Under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade Act no power has been conferred on the said committee to amend the export and import policy as notified by the Central Government. Once that be the position and the petitioners had already completed their export obligations the decision of the PRC to reject the explanation and make a demand for the purported unfulfilled export obligation is totally without jurisdiction and consequently the order on this count is liable to be set aside. On behalf of the Respondents Shri A.J. Rana, Senior Counsel with his usual fairness has placed before us a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Udeshi v. Union of India in Writ Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
