2018 (2) TMI 1200 - HC - Customs

Cancellation of redemption certificates - imposition of fiscal penalty - Held that - from a perusal of the affidavit in support and the annexures thereto it is found that none of the factual developments post institution of the writ petition have been denied or controverted by the Revenue - Once identically situate, parties have obtained the relief and in terms of the order of the CESTAT, as confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court and these certificates or letters of redemption, then, we do not think that anything would survive for adjudication. The Revenue has acted in terms of the orders and which bind it. We, therefore, do not think that the Director General of Foreign Trade can withhold the request which is made by the petitioner all the more when the orders passed and impugned in the petition, would not survive the scrutiny of law - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order/communication dated 1st April 2013 and 4th October 2013; Challenge to order dated 11th September 2013 canceling redemption certificates and imposing fiscal penalty.

Analysis:
The petition challenged orders/communications dated April and October 2013, and an order from September 2013 canceling redemption certificates and imposing a fiscal penalty. The controversy arose from the issuance of advance licenses/authorizations by different offices of the Director General of Foreign Trade. The Norms Committee's decision from May 2012 was implemented for licenses issued by the Joint DGFT, Vadodara. The order from September 2013 was contested before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT) and the Supreme Court. The Tribunal set aside the order from the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Similar orders involving other parties were also discussed, with some being set aside by the Appellate Authority under the Foreign Trade Act. The petitioner sought clarification regarding pending redemption of licenses, which was granted by the DGFT, New Delhi. Eventually, all licenses were redeemed, and export obligations were fulfilled based on various clarifications and developments.

The Court noted that the Revenue did not contest the factual developments post the writ petition's institution. Given that similarly situated parties obtained relief through CESTAT's order confirmed by the Supreme Court, the Court found no grounds for further adjudication. The Court held that the impugned orders would not survive legal scrutiny, and the DGFT must act in accordance with the Norms Committee's decision and grant the petitioner's request. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument for the petitioner to file an appeal, deeming it unnecessary and a waste of time since there was no factual or legal dispute denied by the respondents.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, directing authorities to act as per the Norms Committee decision and grant the petitioner's request. The Court emphasized that forcing the petitioner to file another appeal would be futile, especially when the factual position was undisputed by the respondents. The Court's decision was made in favor of the petitioners, with no costs imposed.