2015 (9) TMI 667 - HC - Customs

Entitlement of benefit of exports made by its sister concern Grant of EODC Encashment of bank guarantee Present Court held that petitioners were entitled to benefit of exports made by its sister concern Though petitioners in pursuance to order approached respondent-4 for grant of EODC same has not yet been issued by respondent No. 4 to the petitioners Meantime respondent-1 to 3 have addressed communication to Respondent-6 for encashment of one of bank guarantees submitted by petitioners as petitioners have not submitted Export Obligation Discharge Certificate Held that - Respondent-2 and 3 and respondent-4 are all organs of Union of India If one organ of Union of India does not comply with orders passed by this Court other organs of Union of India cannot take benefit of same and act prejudicial to interest of party though party is entitled to benefit as per orders passed by present Court Respondent-1 has not yet complied with directions issued by present Court and on other hand respondent-2 and 3 are trying to take benefit of non-compliance by respondent-4 of order In view of matter petitioners have made out case for grant of ad-interim relief Decided in favour of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Grant of interim relief regarding the benefit of exports made by a sister concern.
2. Encashment of a bank guarantee due to non-submission of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate.
3. Compliance with court orders by different organs of the Union of India.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners had imported certain material and claimed benefits based on the exports made by their sister concern, Tata Consultancy Services. Despite previous litigations and court orders, the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) had not been issued by respondent No. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 sought to encash a bank guarantee due to non-submission of the EODC. The court found that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of exports and granted ad-interim relief based on their case for interim relief regarding the benefit of exports made by the sister concern.

2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3's attempt to encash the bank guarantee was based on the non-submission of the EODC. The court highlighted that if one organ of the Union of India fails to comply with court orders, other organs cannot act prejudicially to the party's interest. The court noted the discrepancy where respondent No. 1 did not comply with court directions, while respondent Nos. 2 and 3 tried to benefit from the non-compliance of respondent No. 4. This led the court to grant ad-interim relief to the petitioners.

3. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders by all organs of the Union of India. It noted that when one organ does not adhere to court orders, others should not act against the party's interest. The judgment highlighted the need for consistency and adherence to court decisions by all entities within the Union of India. The court granted ad-interim relief to the petitioners during the pendency of the case until further orders in line with their prayer clause.