9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner is a proprietory firm. When we say the petitioner, it should be taken as the deceased petitioner, for, we have allowed the Notice of Motion No.126 of 2018 to substitute the name of deceased petitioner with that of the applicants in the Notice of Motion stated to be his heirs and legal representatives. 3. It is stated that the deceased petitioner was carrying on business as registered exporter. That was during the relevant import and export policy. The respondent no.1 is the Union of India whereas respondent nos.2 and 3 are the licensing authorities discharging the duties and functions under the provisions of Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992 and Import Control Order 1955 and the Import Export Policies issued from time to time by respondent no.1. 4. In paragraph 3 of the petition it is stated that the petitioner has been issued various REP licences, Imprest Licence from time to time in accordance with the import-export policy in force. On 5th May 1993, the respondents issued a Circular titled as REP Circular No.11 of 1993, inter alia, granting various benefits to various licences including the advance and imprest licences for payment of premium @ 8% in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly the petitioner relies upon the scheme, copy of which is at Exhibit-B, which scheme states in paragraph 8 that the same shall commence from 15th May 1993. The last date for filing claims is 15th October 1993. The payments shall be made before 31st December 1993 and no extension in these dates shall be granted. The petitioner made an application for claiming premium on 24th July 1993 under REP Circular No.11 of 1993. The petitioner states that he is required to fill in the details as far as Part-III is concerned. They are for REP licences of Gem and Jewellery sector. The petitioner entered the licence No.A0108045 dtd.8.2.1993. The petitioner gave the licence number, the date and other particulars in this form. The petitioner annexed an advance receipt with the application and copies of which are found at pages 35 and 36 of the petition paper book. Then the petitioner relies on ExhibitC2, dated 24th July 1993 which is an application form for claiming premium under REP Circular No.11 of 1993. The petitioner filled up the information in Part-III of the form meant for REP licences of Gem and Jewellery sector and lodged the claim for payment. It was requested to issue an account paye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made only after the pre-audit is done by the RBI. 3. RBI pointed out that some of the Regional Licensing Authorities are not responding to audit objections pointed out by RBI/SBI. In such cases where premium payments have already been made all the Regional Licensing Authorities are requested to kindly ensure to comply with any such requirement of RBI/SBI on priority basis." 10. On such a petition, there is a reply affidavit filed by Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. It is stated in the reply affidavit that in the absence of records and particulars in relation of three applications viz Exhibits C-1 to C-3 to the petition, made by the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner cannot be verified. It is claimed that circulars were issued so as to give benefits to those persons who approached various Courts including Appellate authorities and such cases had been decided in favour of applicants therein. In the present case, the petitioner neither approached a Court nor any decision was given in his favour. Hence, all the orders and cases of other parties, which are relied upon by the petitioner, are of no assistance to the petitioner. 11. Thereafter the affidavit states as to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount shall be done by the designated Port Licencing authorities. Then the details of the scheme are set out in paragraph no.3. Part-I thereof envisages payment of 8% premium against advance/imprest/gem jewellery REP Licences. The advance/imprest licences issued prior to 1st May 1993 may be held eligible for payment of 8% premium to the extent imports are yet to be made on or after 1st March 1993 but is restricted to the permissible imports in proportion to the exports already effected and export proceeds realised prior to 1st March 1993. 8% premium may be paid for the unutilized CIF value as indicated on the Exchange Control copy of the licence as on 1st March 1993. The REP licences for the gem and jewellery sector which were not issued then on the exports made prior to 1st March 1993 for which export proceeds have also been realised prior to 1st March 1993, the premium may be paid on the full CIF value of the licence. 15. Thus, for the aforesaid cases, where advance/imprest licences have already been issued, the claim was to be filed with the licensing offices in Part-II of the application form. The claim shall be scrutinized and in the manner indicated in Part-II of the Circula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s any appeal filed or the petitioner's case was admitted for payment on or before 30th June 1994, on which date payment could not be made to the petitioner. Even it is not the case of petitioner that cheques were issued to him but the cheques were not presented for payment. Even in this type of cases payments were to be made only after preaudit made by Reserve Bank of India. 17. There is thus merit in the contentions of the respondents that the scheme was to operate exclusively under the supervision of Reserve Bank of India. Secondly, the benefit of orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions which were filed in this Court but before the cut off date, can be of no assistance. Pertinently in the case of M/s.Sehgal Traders Vs. Union of India and others (Writ Petition No.2117 of 1998 decided on 26th November 1998), unlike in the case of M/s. Atul Gems and another Vs. Union of India and another, in Writ Petition No.352 of 1998 decided on 31st March 1998, this Court did not direct payment. All that this Court directed is consideration of the pending applications. We do not see how any assistance can be derived from this order. The petitioner must blame himself for having appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
