TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, the exemption is subject to the condition that the relevant shipping bills containing both the names of the 3rd party and the license holder must be produced. The findings of the authority in the impugned order with reference to condition (v) is that condition (v) of policy circular No.7/2002 dated 11.07.2002 clearly states that, condonation of procedural lapse of not mentioning EPCG license number and date on third party shipping bills relating to the exports for fulfilment of EO under EPCG scheme may be allowed, subject to the condition that the relevant shipping bills contain both the names of the 3rd party(s) and the license holder. The findings are to be read with reference to the conditions imposed in the policy scheme. The conditions imposed in the policy scheme is unambiguous that the relevant shipping bills should contain both the names of the 3rd party and the license holder. The findings of the competent authority reveals that in order to relax the conditions, EPCG license number, date of the license and the name of the EPCG license holder should be endorsed in the shipping bills. However, the authority found that the petitioner repeatedly failed to fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ense obtained by the license holder. (ii) An affidavit / undertaking in a stamp paper, duly certified by an independent CA, declaring that neither the license holder nor the 3rd party(s) has counted / shall count in future, the exports shown against a particular EPCG license towards fulfillment of EO against any other EPCG license. (iii) List of EPCG licenses obtained by the license hlder as well as by the 3rd party(s). (iv)A declaration from the 3rd party(s) in a stamp paper, duly certified by an independent CA, declaring that the products exported for fulfillment of EO by them on behalf of the license holder as per details given in the statement of exports, were manufactured by the license holder. (v)This would be subject the condition that the relevant shipping bills contain both the names of the 3rd party(s) and the license holder. 3. On 10.05.2006, a demand notice was issued to the writ petitioner by the second respondent, directing the petitioner to pay customs duty forgone proportionately with respect to the utilisation of the license on account of non-fulfillment of export obligation. The petitioner responded on 23.05.2006 stating that the export obligation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsuant to the orders of the High Court, the petitioner made further application to the office of the first respondent for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner. On 10.02.2015, the petitioner was directed by the authorities to submit copies of the shipping bills. The petitioner responded to the above request and submitted full set of documents. However, without considering the request of the petitioner, the claim was rejected through the impugned order dated 14.12.2015. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the circular No.7/2002 is applicable to the case of the petitioner and the petitioner has already submitted all the relevant documents and thus, there is no reason, whatsoever, to reject the claim of the petitioner based on the said circular No.7/2002. The respondents rejected the case on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the clause (v), stipulated in the policy scheme No.7/2002 dated 11.07.2002. In respect of the said clause (v), the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be whether the mention of the EPCG license number on the shipping bill was mandatory or whether the petitioner could seek to explain, by virtue of other contemporaneous and supporting evidences, the factum of export. This could be done by the petitioner by any number of methods, including confirmations from Glovis, correspondences and other documents at its disposal, among others. No doubt, it is for the petitioner to establish that its exports through Glovis have, in fact, taken place. However, such opportunity does not appear to have been extended to the petitioner and the first respondent has merely rejected the claim not adverting to this aspect of the matter at all. 10. Relying on the above judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner could able to explain and establish his case through the supporting documents, wherein, all required details are made available. That being the factum, the exemption is to be granted in accordance with the policy circular No.7/2002 dated 11.07.2002. The rejection order and the reasons stated are untenable, since it is running counter to the principles laid down by the Courts, that the supporting docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority reveals that in order to relax the conditions, EPCG license number, date of the license and the name of the EPCG license holder should be endorsed in the shipping bills. However, the authority found that the petitioner repeatedly failed to file the copies of the shipping bills relating to the 3rd party exports made by them. In order to ascertain whether the condition has been fulfilled or not, ample opportunities were provided to the petitioner to ship his goods with reference to the name of the EPCG license holder, which must be endorsed on the shipping bill. In respect of the opportunity granted, the petitioner could not establish the same through documents and thus, the authorities had no option but to reject the claim of the writ petitioner to grant of exemption. 14. It is not as if the authorities have not considered the case of the writ petitioner, the authorities have gone into the documents filed by the petitioner and admitted to call out an opportunity in order to comply with clause (v) of the police scheme. Since, the requisite particulars are not available in the documents produced by the petitioner, they were not able to consider the case of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
