9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner, a Limited Company, engaged in production, clearance and export of finished excisable goods being bulk drugs and intermediates including Chlorhexidine Gluconate, approached respondent Nos. 2 and 3 seeking conversion of Shipping Bills from Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) Scheme to Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme. This application was moved on 1st April 2003. On 7th October 2003, respondent No. 2 wrote to petitioner stating that the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) Public Notice No. 69/2002-2007 has been effective from 10th March 2003, but the petitioner had claimed the same to be effective from 1st April 2002 and such claim was not supported by any documentary evidence. Therefore, the petitioner was reque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t granted permission to add DGFT as respondent no.4 with permission to serve the said authority by speed post at petitioner's cost. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time. On 11th February 2005, Mr. Malkan had sought time to tender affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent No. 4 and the Court had granted time by passing an order in the following terms : Reply affidavit to be filed on or before 21st February 2005. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be submitted on or before 28th February 2005. To come up on 4th March 2005. 5. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, a prayer was made by Mr. Malkan for time to tender affidavit in reply of respondent No. 4. However, in light of the fact that the matter has been a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e communication dated 7th October 2003 having been redressed, changed its stand and denied the request for conversion on 19th February 2004 by referring to Board Circular dated 16th January 2004. As can be seen from the said communication, except for stating that the said circular No. 4/2004-Customs dated 16th January 2004 has superceded earlier circulars bearing No. 6/2003-CUS dated 28th January 2003 and No. 40/2003-CUS dated 12th May 2003, nothing further has been stated as to why conversion is not being allowed. Even assuming that the ground regarding circular dated 16th January 2004 being applicable was a valid ground, as can be seen from the said circular, respondent No. 2 has failed to make out a case as to which of the requirements s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
