TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the export obligation. Held that:- Since it is the claim of the petitioner that 30% of the Vanaspathi was already exported during the said period, certainly, it is for the fifth respondent to consider the said claim once again by inviting the petitioner to place all the relevant materials in support of such claim. The second reason stated in the impugned order is that the petitioner made the benefit under the EPCG licence after its expiry - the learned counsel for the petitioner invited this Court's attention to Clause 5.11.3 of Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme in Handbook of Procedures to contend that if there is any ban in respect of a particular products the period during which such ban is in operation, has also to be given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of export obligation with respect of EPCG authorization No.0430000746 dated 12.09.2002. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is as follows: The petitioner Company is in the business of import and export and obtained Import Export Code No.0492020779. They have obtained EPCG authorizations bearing Nos.0430000746 dated 12.09.2002 for import of Vapour Absorption Heat Pump and Membrane Filter Press. With the use of imported goods, the petitioner company has an obligation to export Vanaspathi and Margarine, within a period of eight years from the date of issuance of the said licence. Due to intense competition from Sri Lanka, it was difficult to export Vanaspathi and Margarine and as a result, the petitioner was forced to export Cotton ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 18.05.2016, dismissing the same on the ground that the petitioner company has not established any incorrectness, impropriety or illegality in the adjudication process. The petitioner company once again represented before the fourth respondent stating that EPCG Committee has considered the inclusion of alternate products even for licences issued prior to 2004. However, the second respondent through letter dated 28.06.2016 informed the petitioner that they can file a representation before the fifth respondent for appropriate relief. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application on 26.08.2016 before the fifth respondent. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.384 of 2017 seeking for disposal of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the business of import and export. They obtained EPCG authorisation dated 12.09.2002 for import of Vapour Absorption Head Pump and Membrane Filter Press with counter obligation to export Vanaspathi and Margarine in order to get the benefit out of such EPCG licence. It is claimed by the petitioner that they have exported 30.19% of the total export obligation by exporting Vanaspathy and the balance obligation could not be complied with due to the ban imposed between 17.03.2008 to 30.09.2010. It is their further case that they exported cotton seed hulls and cotton linters claiming is to be the by product. The petitioner claims that export of such product to be considered as an alternative product for granting the benefit under the EPCG licence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel sought to rely upon the minutes of the EPCG Committee held on 23.09.2010, taking a decision to permit the alternative product export retrospectively to all those who holds EPCG licence. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, after reiterating the contentions raised in the counter affidavit submitted that the authorities have considered the claim of the petitioner and found that they are not sustainable, since the petitioner has not discharged the export obligation as per the conditions of the licence. 8. Perusal of the impugned order dated 16.05.2017 would show that the same came to be passed based on three reasons. First reason being that the petitioner had 5 years during which there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o consider and decide on merits after hearing the petitioner. The third ground is in respect of retrospective application of the permission granted to export the alternative products. When it is contended by the respondent that the said provision was notified in the year 2004 and the same cannot be applied retrospectively, the petitioner's claims that in view of the decision taken in the minutes of the EPCG committee held on 23.09.2010, such permission has to be applied retrospectively to all those who hold EPCG licence. Therefore, this again is a matter for the fifth respondent to consider the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner. 10. Considering the above stated facts and in view of the discussion stated supra, I am of the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
