Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2020 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 325 - HC - CustomsAdvance Authorization Scheme - rejection of application for condonation of the procedural lapse of non-generation and filing of Bills of Export against the supply of goods to SEZ Unit - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts reveal that the petitioners have received purchase order from M/s DIC Fine Chemical Private Limited, a SEZ Unit situated in Gujrat and based upon the purchase order, the petitioner applied to the Director General of Foreign Trade for issuance of Advance Licences / Authorizations. Advance Authorizations were issued by the Officer of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Bhopal in the year 2012 – 13 and the petitioners, as stated by them, imported the specified goods / raw material permitted under the Advance Authorization required for manufacture of said Soya Long Oil Alkyd Regin to be supplied to SEZ Unit. The “Aayat Niryat Form” provides for submission of proofs by furnishing “Bill of Export”. The petitioners were required to submit proof of export to SEZ Unit and the proof of export is mentioned in Form 98-VI of the Custom Manual - Not only this, as per Section 30 (3) of the SEZ Rules, Bill of Export is a mandatory requirement and no claim can be accepted in absence of proper authorization. Undisputedly, the petitioners have failed to comply with the aforesaid requirement and for the reasons best known to the petitioners, the petitioners have not impleaded the SEZ Unit, Dahej as respondent, which is a necessary party. Whether the goods were received at SEZ Unit, Dahej or not, could have been answered by the SEZ Unit, Dahej only. The petitioner have also not complied various statutory provisions by not furnishing Bill of Exports. In the present case, the petitioners have opted not to implead SEZ as a respondent, and therefore, as there is no verification on the part of the Officer of the SEZ, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief of whatsoever kind on basis of the judgment delivered in the case of Larsen & Toubro [2017 (10) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. The petitioners' stand is that the petitioners have exported the goods manufactured through M/s DIC Fine Chemical Limited, a SEZ Unit at Dahej, and therefore, they are not liable to pay any duty keeping in view the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004 – 2009. The proof required for the purpose is “Bill of Export” and the petitioners have not been able to submit the Bill of Export. Whether the petitioners have supplied goods to the SEZ Unit, Gujarat or not, can only be looked into after petitioners file a reply to the Department in respect of the letters issued to the petitioners. It is purely question of fact and can be looked into by the competent authority - In the considered opinion of this Court, the question of interference, at this stage in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise. Petition dismissed.
|