Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 590 - HC - CustomsAdvance Authorisation Scheme - clubbing of three schemes - As a consequence of the Petitioner's noncompliance of the conditions imposed by the PRC, the Petitioner was placed in a DEL list on the websites of the authorities - Whether the Petitioner is entitled to invoke Public Notice No. 79 dated 13th October, 2011 on 29th August, 2012 and seek clubbing of the three AAs? - Held that: - The Petitioner’s contention that it has a legitimate expectation for its request to be considered under Public Notice No. 79 is belied by the fact that its request for clubbing itself was after the supersession of the said Public Notice. The HBP had stood amended and hence, there cannot be a legitimate expectation for continuation of a relaxation policy, which is non-existent on the date it is invoked - The Petitioner having filed its application for clubbing on 29th August, 2012 cannot, therefore, legitimately expect that its application would be considered under Public Notice No. 79 which already stood amended and superseded. The authorities, therefore, rightly rejected the application for clubbing of the three AAs which were not as per the Notification dated 5th June, 2012. Whether the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) has the power to impose conditions, while allowing clubbing of the 3 AAs? - Held that: - the powers of the PRC, while making its recommendations are wide and are purely discretionary. The PRC, in its order dated 24th April, 2015 has considered the relevant facts and permitted the clubbing of the three Advanced Authorizations and while permitting the said clubbing, conditions ‘as it deemed fit’ have been imposed by it which cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. The review order of the PRC dated 26th April, 2016 also clearly shows that the case of the Petitioner was discussed at length and it is only thereafter, that the decision dated 24th April, 2015 was reiterated. The submission of the Petitioner that the PRC does not have the power to impose such conditions does not appear to be correct inasmuch as the order of clubbing is by itself an exercise of power for granting an exemption - The exercise of discretion to grant exemption is a delicate balance between balancing the hardship of the Petitioner and the adverse impact on trade. The PRC, in the background of the Petitioner's case, has imposed conditions which are neither illegal nor arbitrary. The earliest AAs which were issued, dated back to 21st November, 2007 with an export obligation period of 24 months. The Petitioner has had sufficient time to discharge the said obligations. In fact, even the Public Notice No. 79 which permitted clubbing of the three AAs with a time span of 36 months was a relaxation. The invocation of the said relaxation after the same was superseded and amended cannot be claimed as a matter of right. On the date when the application was filed by the Petitioner, the said Public Notice No. 79 had already lapsed. The relaxation by the PRC allowing clubbing of the three AAs being an exercise of discretionary power and the conditions imposed thereon, being in furtherance of the exercise of that discretion for granting exemption from applicable policy and procedure, this Court does not deem it a fit case for interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|