9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 023 (2) TMI 1101 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Jindal Drugs [ 2021 (7) TMI 1034 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and M/s Ashwini Ashish Dighe [ 2019 (8) TMI 1006 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the impugned order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the second respondent is hereby quashed. The third respondent is directed to allow the claim made by the petitioner under the FPS and MEIS Scheme and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to provide rewards to exporters to offset infrastructural insufficiencies and associated costs. Para 3.03 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 (Vol-I) describes the objective of the MEIS Scheme which is to promote the manufacture and export of notified goods/products. 3. While that being so, the petitioner received a contract from M/s.ELTA Systems Limited (IAI) Israel (hereinafter referred to as 'the buyer' for short) under the Indian Offset Partner arrangement for supply of few components, which would be incorporated in the defence equipments supplied by the said buyer to the defence establishments in India. The agreement with the said buyer, has 5 batches of deliverables and out of 5 batches, the petitioner has already shipped ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unter-affidavit and specifically contended that the petitioner, without exhausting the Review before the Policy Relaxation Committee, directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as the Writ Petition is not maintainable and after rejection of the incentive claims under the FPS and MEIS by the second respondent, the petitioner approached by way of Review as contemplated under Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 before the second respondent. The same was rejected by the order impugned in this Writ Petition dated 18.02.2021. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials availabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent at the behest of the purchaser, UTEXAM, to a location of its choice. This modus operandi is supported by the documentation placed on record by the petitioner. 21. Thus, DHL logistics, the FTWZ, merely offers a facility to the petitioner to warehouse its consignments that are to be exported. The destination is decided by UTEXAM, which is the ultimate purchaser, which has paid the petitioner in USD for the consignment. The stipulation in Clause (vii) deals with exports made by a unit in the FTWZ. DHL, the FTWZ does not export the consignments but only facilitates such exports. The exports are thus, by the petitioner through DHL to a destination abroad. 22. To a query as to why the transaction was so structured, the petitioner explains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 8. Further, a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Ashwini Ashish Dighe -vs- Union of India reported in (2019 (368) E.L.T.610 (Bom.)] and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:- "10. It is in the above circumstances, that we set aside the communication dated 18 July, 2019 and direct the respondent no. 3 - Director General of Foreign Trade to examine this issue in the context of the petitioner's claim. This clarification with regard to paragraph 3.06 of the FTP 2015-20 would bind all Authorities under the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act so far as the interpretation put on paragraph 3.06 of the FTP by the Director General of Foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2022 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:- "19. In the present case, the decisions of Jindal Drugs (supra) and M/s Ashwini Ashish Dighe (supra) would be clearly applicable. The company i.e. M/s Siddhartha Logistics is merely a FTWZ logistics company located in Andhra Pradesh. The said company was involved neither in the manufacture of the products nor the entire sale transaction. It was merely providing logistical support to enable the shipment move within India and ultimately to the French customer i.e. Dedienne Aerospace. Further, it is also noticed that M/s Siddhartha Logistics has already issued its no objection giving consent to the Petitioner to claim the drawback benefits. 20. Under such circumstances, though the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
