TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flex s name and the EPCG license be indicated on the shipping bills/Bills of Export. It is seen in the present case that the petitioner had not provided the documents as required - It is also relevant to note that in terms of Rule 30 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006, the goods supplied to an SEZ Unit are required to be inspected prior to the issue of Bill of Exports. Filing of Bill of Exports is not a mere formality but serves as a valuable check for ensuring that the goods deemed to have been exported are in fact received by the SEZ Unit and are accounted as Deemed Exports. In the present case, the petitioner had merely filed only Form I which was issued for the purposes of Central Sales Tax Act. Thus, no relief can be grante ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orisation No. 0230000858 dated 27.01.2005) for import of capital goods for manufacturing its products. In terms of the said authorisation, Holoflex had saved import duty, amounting to a sum of ₹ 2,17,317,25/- and had undertaken an export obligation of an aggregate value (FOB) of ₹ 17,38,538/- (US$37508.91), over and above its average exports. The said exports were to be completed within a period of eight years from the date of issue of the EPCG Authorisation. 4. The said period expired on 27.01.2013. Admittedly, prior to the expiry of the said period, Holoflex did not submit any documents to substantiate that it had exported goods of the stipulated FOB value over and above the average export turnover prior to import of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pear from the record that Holoflex issued any such clarification as sought. However, the petitioners assert that petitioner no.2 had apprised the respondent authorities that no Bill of Exports had been issued in respect of the goods supplied to Nokia. 8. Thereafter, on 26.06.2014, the Joint DGFT issued a Circular directing further license and renewal of expired license to be refused in terms of Section 9(2) of the FTDR Act. The petitioner sent a letter dated 16.09.2014 representing against the said Circular. 9. Thereafter, on 04.09.2014, the Joint DGFT issued another show cause notice calling upon Holoflex and its directors to show cause why fiscal penalty should not be imposed under Section 11(2) of the FTDR Act. 10. In response t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioners, advanced contentions on two fronts. First, he submitted that non-submission of the Bill of Exports was only a procedural matter and the same could not be considered as mandatory. Second, he submitted that Holoflex had submitted copies of five invoices out of which only two pertained to supplies made to Nokia in the SEZ unit and the remaining were physical exports but the same had been ignored. 15. Mr. Sinha also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Union of India: (2018) 360 ELT 289 in support of its contention that Bill of Exports was only a procedural matter and non-submission of the same could be excused. 16. At the outset, it would be relevant to refer to the condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Goods under the licence shall be subject to actual user condition. 7. Licence holder shall submit statement of export within three months from the expiry of block year duly certified by a Chartered Accountant and concerned Bank to the Licensing Authority. He shall also submit yearly performance of exports in electronics format. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 10. This licence will be operative as per provisions of the exim policy and Hand Book of Procedures 20042009 or any other law /provision time being in force 11. The licencee shall have to fulfill export obligation as per Para 5.8 of H.B. 2004-2009. 17. It is apparent from the above that Holoflexwas required to submit the statement of export within three months of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he time of assessment, it shall be specifically examined whether the goods are required for the authorized operations by the Unit or Developer, with reference to the Letter of Approval or the list of goods approved by the Approval Committee for the Developer. **** **** **** **** (9) A copy of the Bill of Export and ARE-1 with an endorsement of the Authorised Officer that the goods have been admitted in full in the Special Economic Zone, shall be treated as proof of export. 20. It is seen in the present case that the petitioner had not provided the documents as required. 21. It is also relevant to note that in terms of Rule 30 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006, the goods supplied to an SEZ Unit are required to be in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
