Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 116 - HC - CustomsDuty Free Import Authorisation Scheme (DFIA) - Application for second extension of validity of the Duty Free Import Authorisation - rejection on the ground that the petitioner was unable to establish a case of genuine hardship - Held that:- As is apparent from the plain language of the Paragraph 2.58 of the FTP, the DGFT is empowered to grant exemption, relaxation or relief from the provisions of FTP or any procedure if he so deems fit. However, it is important to note that such exemption, relaxation or relief can be only granted if it is in public interest and on the grounds of genuine hardship and adverse impact on trade - In the present case, the PRC had considered the petitioner’s request and had concluded that the petitioner had not established a case of genuine hardship. Whether, in the facts of the present case, the decision of the PRC is arbitrary or unreasonable and warrants interference in these proceedings? - Held that:- The discretion to relax the conditions of the FTP/HBP rests with the PRC and not this Court. Therefore, the scope of judicial review of the decisions of the PRC is limited. Unless the petitioner is able to establish that the decision of the PRC was perverse, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or otherwise contrary to the statutory framework, no interference with such decision would be permissible - It is, at once, clear that the petitioner had not set up a case of any unexpected hardship or any emergent situation that had precluded the petitioner from completing the imports. Essentially, the petitioner had sought extension of the Duty Free Import Authorization on the ground of commercial expediency. The PRC was of the view that since the petitioner had not set up a case of genuine hardship, it was not entitled to any relaxation in terms of Paragraph 2.58 of the FTP - This Court is unable to accept that the said decision is arbitrary, unreasonable or otherwise falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Whether the petitioner had been afforded sufficient time to comply with the import obligations for completing the imports under the Duty Free Import Authorization? - Held that:- The petitioner had obtained an import authorization which remained valid for twenty-four months. The DGFT noted that, in this manner, the petitioner had secured a Duty Free Import Authorization which was valid for a period longer than those issued to other exporters. Also, the petitioner had not made out a case of genuine hardship. Petition dismissed.
|