9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Kariwala and not Kariwala Green Bags. The appellants point of view is that to get the benefit of drawback the exporter, importer and the recipient of the foreign exchange have to be one entity. HELD THAT:- The scope of interference of the writ court whether in its original or appellate jurisdiction with factual findings in a decision is extremely limited. It can interfere if the authority has failed to exercise its jurisdiction or has exceeded its jurisdiction. If there is violation of the principles of natural justice, the court can interfere. If there is an error of law apparent in the order, it vitiates it. The court will not re-examine facts or evidence. It cannot substitute its views with that of the court or authority below. If th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic Zone (FEEZ). Kariwala asserts that they got permission to set up a unit there. They called it Kariwala Green Bags Unit-III. They describe it as a division of the company. The Development Commissioner, Falta Special Economic Zone on 1st August, 2005 issued a Letter of Permission (LOP) under Rule 19(2) of the said Rules specifying the items of manufacture permitted to be made by this unit. From time to time this permission was extended till 30th June, 2017. Chapter VI of the said Act conferred special benefit for manufacture in this zone for goods imported into or goods exported out of this zone. An entrepreneur in the Special Economic Zone would be entitled to refund of a part of the duty paid by them under the Customs Act, 1962, Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of the above rules. However, the shipping bills were drawn in the name of Kariwala. This drawback claim relates to the period April, 2008 to March, 2009. It amounted to Rs.52,67,429/-. According to the respondent writ petitioner, Kariwala Green Bags procured goods from the domestic tariff area. According to the authorities, Kariwala and Kariwala Green Bags were different entities. Foreign exchange was received on export of the goods by Kariwala and not Kariwala Green Bags. The appellants' point of view is that to get the benefit of drawback the exporter, importer and the recipient of the foreign exchange have to be one entity. Kariwala Green Bags and Kariwala operated through different LOPs. Kariwala strongly denied these allegations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Green Bags and M/s. Kariwala Industries Ltd. are different entities is a misplaced understanding of the facts. As stated earlier, M/s Kariwala Green Bags and M/s. Kariwala Industries Ltd. are different units of M/s. Kariwala Industries Ltd. The determination by the lower authority that the appellant has violated rules 22(2), 30(8) and 34 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, is factually incorrect. There seems to be no such violation. Thus this finding of the lower authority is set aside. Further, the reference to section 50(2) of Customs Act, 1962, is irrelevant and mis-conceived. Correspondingly there is no mis- declaration. Lastly, it is a fact on record that the export sale proceeds have been obtained for which bank realization certificate have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... la Green Bags belonging to Kariwala justified export of the goods by Kariwala Industries Ltd. in its own name. Transfer of goods from one unit of an entity to another for manufacture was permissible under Rule 30(15)(v) and proviso to Rule 34. The learned judge noted the requirement of Rule 30(8) of the said Rules that raw materials procured from the domestic tariff area had to be made from a foreign currency account. He also noted the contention of the customs authorities that payment had been made in foreign currency but not from a foreign currency account. Kariwala Green Bags admittedly did not maintain a foreign currency account but the export proceeds in Unit-III received in foreign currency were credited to a current account from whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta and Ors. are on appeal before us. On each and every material issue the learned single judge has come to a plausible finding. He has held that Kariwala Green Bags was a division of Kariwala Industries Ltd. and not a separate entity. Being a division it was entitled to transfer goods to another division for manufacture. This transfer was made to Unit-III, Kariwala Industries Ltd. It was a requirement of the duty drawback scheme that the raw materials for manufacture had to be procured from a domestic tariff area and paid from a foreign currency account. Although not paid from a foreign currency account, Kariwala Green Bags paid for these goods in foreign currency through a dedicated account, according to the learned judge, substantially c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
