9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include challenges to an order related to export obligations under the EPCG Scheme, rejection of extension requests, jurisdictional concerns regarding the authority passing the order, and the interpretation of relevant policies and acts. Challenge to Order on Export Obligations: The petitioner, an industry engaged in manufacturing and exporting industrial fabrics, challenged an order stating they were not eligible for benefits due to not meeting export obligations by the specified deadline. The petitioner sought relief through writ petitions, one of which requested a mandamus to consider their representation for fulfilling export obligations. Extension of Export Obligations and Rehabilitation: The petitioner had imported goods under the EPCG Scheme with specific export obligations. They requested extensions and revisions to these obligations, citing financial difficulties and requests for further time. The petitioner also highlighted their registration as a Sick Industrial Company and subsequent rehabilitation efforts by the BIFR. Jurisdictional Objections and Legal Interpretation: The petitioner raised objections regarding the authority passing the impugned order, contending it lacked jurisdiction. The court considered the interpretation of relevant acts and policies, emphasizing the need to assess the petitioner's financial status and sickness of the industry in determining eligibility for extensions under the Exim Policy. Court's Decision and Remand: After considering submissions from both sides, the court found merit in the petitioner's contentions and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the competent authority for reconsideration, directing them to review the petitioner's financial evidence and sickness status to make a decision in accordance with the law. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to submit a fresh representation for further consideration within a specified timeline.
|
