Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 673 - HC - CustomsSeeking exit from EOU scheme - rejection on the ground that petitioner had not submitted periodic performance report during the validity of letter of permission and as agreed in legal undertaking which amounted to non-compliance of the conditions - mere a procedural lapse or otherwise - Chapter VI of Foreign Trade Policy - HELD THAT:- As could be seen from the provisions of the scheme, the objective of the clause is to ensure that an entity which has taken some benefit in the form of importing capital goods without payment of duty, the same would not be entitled to exit from the scheme without making good the duties that it had availed off. The objective of the scheme is essentially to ensure that an entity does not take the benefit of the scheme and thereafter withdraw from the scheme and make a profit out of the entire venture. The petitioner admittedly made an application seeking for exit from the scheme and it was its specific case that it had not imported any capital goods or procured any capital goods in respect of project. As could be seen from the finding recorded by the authority, the petitioner had not imported any capital goods or procured any capital goods for setting up the software technology park. It is, therefore, clear that it was not obliged to reimburse any amounts for exiting from the scheme - clause relating to exit from the scheme does not entitle the authority to reject the application on the ground that the periodical performance report had not been furnished. In this case, the authority has in fact stated that the petitioner did furnish the IT park progress report as per its email dated 10.06.2009. The mere noncompliance of a procedural requirement cannot prevent the petitioner from exiting from the scheme. The furnishing of periodic status report did not result in any monetary benefit to the petitioner and it was only procedural requirement which it had to comply. If the petitioner had not taken any monetary benefit by virtue of the licence granted to it, its exit cannot be denied - As far as the argument that an appellate remedy is available, it is to be stated here that the matter is pending before this Court since eight years and after a period of eight years, relegating the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy would neither be just, nor proper. In the light of the fact that the petitioner has not availed any benefit under the scheme, the impugned order cannot be sustained - Petition allowed.
|