TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has to be first quantified by following the due process and as explained by the Supreme Court in the context of the scheme it should be payable to the government and subsisting i.e., not paid. The Target Plus Scheme is a beneficial provision with the objective to accelerate growth in exports by giving incentives to those export houses whose exports show an annual upward trend. Initially the benefits were graded i.e., 5%, 10% and 15% depending upon the percentage of incremental growth in exports. Petitioner fell within the 15% category for the year 2005-2006. Thereafter, by an amendment on 12.06.2006, the percentage of incentives was made uniform i.e., 5% which was given retrospective effect from 01.04.2005 - Petitioner is entitled to the balance 10% benefit for the same period for which the 5% benefit was granted being within the 15% category. When one part of the benefit for a year was given, question of withholding of the remaining benefit for the same year does not arise. Exports are of the year 2005-2006. We are now in 2020. 14 years have lapsed in between. Such inordinate delay can only frustrate the very objective of the scheme. Respondents are directed to issue the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .21 in the year 2004-2005. Net exports of the Petitioner increased to ₹ 91,45,81,389.72 in the next year i.e. 2005-2006, percentage of increase being 119.34 percent over the previous year. Thus, Petitioner became eligible under category c of the scheme having incremental growth in exports above 100%, thus entitled to 15% of the incremental growth. 6] Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India i.e. Respondent No.2 issued Notification No.08 of 2006 dated 12.06.2006. The said notification was issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with paragraph 1.3 and paragraph 3.7.8 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009 making amendments to the Target Plus Scheme for the exports effected during the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. It was stated that the rate of entitlement would be 5% of the incremental growth clarifying that the said amendment would take effect for exports retrospectively from 01.04.2005. 7] Initially Petitioner had made an application under the scheme to Respondent No.3 on 18.07.2006 for issuance of duty credit scri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... queries raised by Respondent No.3. It is stated that Respondent No.3 continued with his efforts to procure more and more documents from the Petitioner and in this connection issued letter dated 23.10.2017 directing the Petitioner to submit a few more documents which were also submitted with clarifications by the Petitioner vide letter dated 09.11.2017. 12] Not content with the above, Respondent No.3 issued letter dated 08.03.2018 to the Petitioner directing it to submit revised no dues certificate. Responding to the said letter, Petitioner submitted revised no dues certificate on 18.04.2018 and requested Respondent No.3 to issue the additional scrips. Unfortunately, there was no reply by Respondent No.3. However, Petitioner continued requesting Respondent No.3 vide letters dated 22.05.2019, 24.06.2019 and 14.10.2019 to issue necessary licence under the scheme for the remaining scrips for the balance amount of ₹ 4,22,16,175.73 (₹ 6,33,24,263.00 ₹ 2,11,08,087.85) : the actual figure should be ₹ 4,22,16,175.15. Authorized representatives of the Petitioner also met officials of Respondent No.3 and explained to the officials about the claim of the Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the revised certificate, were submitted to Respondent No.3. In the circumstances he submits that necessary direction may be issued to the Respondents to issue duty credit scrips for the balance amount of ₹ 4,22,16,175.73 under the Target Plus Scheme. 18] Mr. Pradeep Jetly, learned senior counsel representing the Respondents submits that there is a typographical error in the order dated 06.10.2020; the date of the meeting of the Zonal Committee was typed as 29.09.2020 whereas such a meeting was held on 25.09.2020. Petitioner s claim was considered by the Zonal Committee whereafter it was noted that as was reported by the customs authorities there were dues related to non submission of BRC for the draw back claim. In such circumstances, the Zonal Committee agreed to give conditional approval to the claim of the Petitioner subject to clearance of the customs department. He submits that Petitioner should approach the customs authorities and obtain a clearance letter from them. Once the clearance letter is issued, the balance claim of the Petitioner under the scheme shall be considered. 19] Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NCH Customs related to non-submission of BRCs for the drawback claimed. The representative claimed that they do not have any BRCs pending from their side even till 2017-18. 4. The Members of the Zonal Committee agreed to give conditional approval to the claim ₹ 42216175/- subject to clearance of JNCH Customs Department regarding to the dues. The Applicant should approach the concerned Office for a clearance letter and the Member of the Zonal Committee from the concerned Department would facilitate for faster reply regarding the same. 5. The Members from Customs and DRI also suggested that a member from TAR may also be included into the committee for getting an all India perspective. 22] While Mr. Prakash Shah, learned counsel for the Petitioner has categorically stated that no government dues are payable by the Petitioner, based on the above minutes Mr. Pradeep Jetly submits that customs office had reported that there are dues pertaining to non-submission of BRC. It is in the above context that the Zonal Committee agreed to grant conditional approval to the claim of ₹ 4,22,16,175.00 of the Petitioner subject to clearance of the customs department. 23] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are pending against the government including its departments. In the two orders dated 26.11.2019 and 04.02.2020 passed in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra), Supreme Court has clarified that clause VIII of the Notification and Trade Notice dated 08.05.2017 refers to pending dues to government only and that government dues means dues which are payable and still subsisting. 27] Without entering into details, we can safely say that the word dues means something which is payable. Shorn of semantics, the word dues means something which a person has an obligation to pay e.g., a debt or a tax; something which is enforceable. Juxtaposing the word dues with the word government , the expression government dues would mean something which is payable to and enforceable by the government on account of a legal obligation or a contract. Therefore, the amount due has to be first quantified by following the due process and as explained by the Supreme Court in the context of the scheme it should be payable to the government and subsisting i.e., not paid. 28] Reverting back to the minutes of the meeting held on 25.09.2020, it is seen that no amount of dues stated to be pendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
