9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al export growth of 486.45% in 2003-2004 over 2002-2003. 2. The petitioner places reliance on the Export and Import Policy (2002-2007) as on 1st April, 2003 notified by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 whereby the foreign trade policy has been spelt out. This policy is notified by the Government in recognition of the fact that foreign trade is not a thing in itself but a means to economic growth and national development. The primary purpose is not merely earning of foreign exchange but also the stimulation of greater economic activity. 3. In terms of para 3.7.2.1(f) of the Export and Import Policy 2002-2007, a status holder was eligible for a Duty Free Credit Entitlement ('DFCE', for short) benefit if the status holder had an incremental growth of more than 25% in the FOB value of exports, subject to a minimum export turnover of Rs. 25 crores. The DFCE was prescribed to be equivalent to 10% of the incremental growth in exports. It was also prescribed that the DFCE entitlement can be used for duty free import of capital goods, the office equipments and inputs for the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Licensing Authority (s) in the respective licensing offices. Grievance Committee will include representatives of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations (FIEO), Export Promotion Councils/Commodity Boards, Development Authorities, and Government Departments/technical authorities as their members." 8. Aggrieved by the decision dated 2nd November, 2005 of the Joint Director General Foreign Trade, the petitioner made an application dated 30th November, 2005 before the Grievance Redressal Committee which granted a personal hearing to the petitioner on the 26th December, 2005. 9. On a consideration of the matter, the Grievance Redressal Committee accepted the contentions of the petitioner and held the petitioner entitled to the DFCE benefit. The decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee was communicated to the petitioner by an office memorandum dated 14th February, 2006 of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. This communication records that the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee was duly approved as per instructions contained in the DGFT OM No. 01/60/162/44/AM05/EFGC(Gr.Cell) dated 6th October, 2005 and reads as under :- "The Committee gave patient hearing to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endorsed to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 as well. 11. Inasmuch as the respondent failed to implement the decisions taken informed to the petitioner by the communication dated 14th February, 2006 and 27th February, 2006 and the failure to issue the DFCE certification, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the non-action of the respondents on grounds of arbitrariness and illegality. 12. The writ petition has been opposed by Mr. Rajeev Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the ground that only the Director General Foreign Trade was the competent authority to take a decision in the matter and not the Grievance Redressal Committee. It has further been urged that the subject matter of the present writ petition is pending consideration before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1589/2006 in the case entitled Union of India v. Adani Exports Limited wherein the court has stayed the orders of the High Court of Gujarat which are dated 6th March, 2006. It has further been urged that the Grievance Redressal Committee had power only to consider claims which had been rejected on procedural grounds as limitation etc. and not the issues which had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the Export Import Policy and has notified the same for the period 2002-2007 which came into force with effect from 1st April, 2002 and is to remain in force up to 31st March, 2007 and would be co-terminus with the Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007). Thus, so far as the instant case is concerned, the policy as amended up to 31st March, 2003 was in operation. 17. The respondents have placed reliance on regulation 2.3 under chapter II of the General Provisions regarding imports and exports as contained in the Exim Policy, 2002-2007 to urge that any question or doubt arising with regard to a license/ certificate/permission issued in accordance with the policy or touching upon the scope and content of such documents was required to be referred to the Director General of Foreign Trade whose decision thereon shall be final and binding. 18. It is noteworthy that the petitioner has not raised any question with regard to the licence or certificate or permission issued to it but its claim and grievance relates to its claim to entitlement to the duty free credit entitlement based on exports effected in terms of a licence issued to it. The petitioner has claimed the benefit which has accrued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute pending before the Apex Court and there is no stay of the present proceedings. 24. It now becomes necessary to examine the only ground which has been given by the respondent for non-implementation of the decision taken on 14th February, 2006 and the further order passed on 27th February, 2006. The respondents have stated that despite the approval of the highest authority which would be the concerned minister in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, an office memorandum dated 20th March, 2006 was issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade that all decisions of the Grievance Redressal Committee which effected adversely the government stand in the court of law are to be kept in abeyance. 25. It is an admitted position that the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee or that of the Government on 27th February, 2006 has not been varied, modified or reviewed in any manner. The same has also not been assailed or challenged by the respondents by any proceedings before any court. The respondents have not given any details or particulars of either the proceedings in the court of law or the government stand in respect thereof. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
