TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose of convenience. Therefore, the relevant provisions of the FTP dealing with MEIS Scrips cannot be interpreted in a manner that permits secondary facilitative transactions to supplant the principal export transaction thus preventing actual exporters from obtaining the benefit of MEIS Scrips. This Court is of the view that the successive orders passed by the Asst. DGFT and the Addl. DGFT display a lack of application of mind by the afore-noted authorities and their refusal to consider the decision delivered by the Madras High Court in Jindal Drugs [ 2021 (7) TMI 1034 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] , which was presented by the Respondent Company on two occasions, in their reply and their appeal, is erroneous. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the Impugned Judgement whereby the Learned Single Judge set aside the Impugned Actions and directed the concerned authorities to revalidate the MEIS Scrips previously issued to the Respondent Company - patent appeal dismissed. - HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA For the Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr. Aman Rewaria, Ms. Astu Khandelwal and Mr. Yasharth S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted to exporters under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme ( MEIS ) of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 (the FTP ) (hereinafter, the benefit applied for by the Respondent Company is referred to as MEIS Scrips ). The Respondent Company through its application dated 10.05.2021, sought MEIS Scrips amounting to INR 42, 18,906/- against the Bill of Export. 6. The Respondent Company was granted MEIS Scrips amounting to INR 42, 18,906/- by the Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade (the Asst. DGFT ) vide letter dated 11.06.2021. However, the same was proposed to be cancelled vide show cause notice dated 14.07.2021 ( Show Cause Notice ) issued by the Asst. DGFT on grounds that the Respondent Company had misrepresented its supply destination as France in its application. The Show Cause Notice stated that the supply of goods by Respondent Company was ineligible for grant of MEIS Scrips as, according to the Bill of Export, it merely constituted supply from a Domestic Tariff Area unit ( DTA ) to a Special Economic Zone unit ( SEZ )/FTWZ i.e., from Respondent Company to Siddhartha Logistics. In their reply to the Show Cause Notice, dated 20.07.2021, the Respondent Company cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by this order, the Respondent Company preferred W.P.(C) No. 10709/2021 before this Court. The same was disposed of vide order dated 28.09.2021, directing the Respondent Company to prefer a statutory appeal under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Thereafter, the statutory appeal preferred by the Respondent Company was also rejected by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade (the Addl. DGFT ) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2022 (the Order-in-Appeal ). 10. Aggrieved by the Show Cause Notice, the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal (hereinafter collectively referred to as Impugned Actions ), the Respondent Company approached this Court again in the Writ Petition praying for setting aside of the Impugned Actions. Before the learned Single Judge, the Respondent Company placed reliance on the decision in Jindal Drugs (supra) and the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Ashwini Ashish Dighe vs. The Union of India Ors. 2022(2) Bom CR 272. In Ashwini Dighe (supra) the Court upheld the principle emerging from Jindal Drugs (supra) but on a factual assessment of the documents on record therein, held that the Petitioner therein was not ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit (Siddhartha Logistics) and is therefore ineligible under Clause 3.06(vii) of the FTP. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the contention advanced by the DGFT is contrary to the factual position evidenced by the documents and payments on record. The Respondent Company has produced its Export Invoice, Bill of Export, and e-Bank Realisation Certificates which clearly establish the relationship of buyer and seller between the Respondent Company and DA. Further, it has supplemented its case by producing documents of Siddhartha Logistics i.e., the NOC, the Shipping Bill as mentioned earlier, and the Cargo Receipt dated 20.07.2018 wherein Siddhartha Logistics is clearly reflected as the intermediate consignee who is receiving the goods on behalf of DA for storage purposes. While it is an undisputed fact that the Respondent Company being a DTA unit supplied goods to Siddhartha Logistics an SEZ/FTWZ unit, these documents establish beyond a doubt that the principal export transaction was between the Respondent Company and DA and, Siddhartha Logistics merely served as an intermediary who facilitated this export transaction. 15. At this stage, it is pertinent to detail th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
