9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r availing benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (hereinafter 'the MEIS') benefits on the premise that the shipping bills submitted by the petitioner have become time barred. 3. It is submitted that vide Paragraph 3.01 and 3.02 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 (hereinafter referred as 'the FTP'), certain incentives were contemplated to be given to exporters in the form of 'MEIS' Scrip which could be used towards payment of customs duty at the time of import of goods. The MEIS scrip was to be freely tradable in terms of the relevant stipulation under the FTP. 4. The dispute between the parties have arisen in context of the petitioner's claim for entitlement to benefit of MEIS in respect of shipping bills which were issued against the goods exported by the petitioner to Egypt, Algeria, Libya and Romania between July 2015 to August 2016. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a delay on part of the foreign importers to release foreign exchange remittances in respect of the aforesaid shipping bills. It is stated that ultimately the petitioner managed to receive the aforesaid remittances in respect of 8 shipping bills in part during the period from 30.06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counter affidavit, have annexed an e-mail communication dated 20th "From: AS Lungreishang [email protected] Tue, Oct 20, 2020 03:25 PM October, 2020, which reads as follows: Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 8 time barred shipping bills. To : lotus impex [email protected] Sir, Please refer to your application on the above mentioned subject and to say that your request has been examined. It is observed that your request is not clear. (i) For S/Bill No. 7146122 dated 19.04.2016 realization happened on 05.11.2018, why did you not apply for MEIS? (ii) Similarly, for other S/Bills realization happened in January-May 2019, however you had applied only in September, 2020. You are requested to submit the reasons for delay, to process the case further. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority. Regards A.S. Lungreishang Dy. DGFT (PRC)" 3. Counsel for the Petitioner claims that the aforenoted e-mail communication was never received by it; nevertheless, all the necessary information and documents have been furnished by the Petitioner. Respondents, however, have not taken final view on the matter as is evident from an email communication dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the stipulated deadlines (which is 3 years from the date of S/Bills) resulting into time barred Shipping Bills. They are not able to claim MEIS benefit against the above 8 shipping bills because DGFT shows zero benefit, online. They could not apply online for MEIS benefit within prescribed period of one year because they did not receive the foreign exchange remittances from the buyers of their goods in time due to some conflict with foreign buyer over issue of payment. They buyers of their goods were backing down turn in their country due to which they suffered a lot in their own business activities, in addition to other issues in their country. Hence they could not make the payment in time. They struggled a lot and took various actions on foreign buyers towards recovered of payment and incurred significant amount towards travelling expenses also for settling the dispute. Now they have settled the payment issue with the buyers and realized their payment for the said shipping bills. They are recognized export house and leading exporter of automobile parts and accessories and doing will to contribute towards government revenue and foreign exchange reserve with increased export turno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstances, it is inequitable to disallow the benefit of MEIS to the petitioner. 11. It is further submitted that the petitioner could not have been made to suffer and be deprived of its legitimate entitlement when delay in realization of export proceeds was beyond its control. It is further stated that the petitioner has suffered significantly on account of the delayed realization of payment during which period, the petitioner had to service the loans availed by it from its banks and as a consequence thereof had to suffer significant losses. 12. Having given my anxious consideration to the matter, I am unable to accept that the petitioner is entitled, as a matter of right, to the benefit of relaxation as contemplated under paragraph 2.58 of the FTP. 13. In the very nature of things, policy relaxation cannot be claimed by the petitioner as a matter of substantive right. The same lies within the realm of the discretion of the concerned authorities to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. It is for the PRC to consider whether the cited circumstances are such as to warrant grant of relaxation. A Division bench of this Court in NOCIL Ltd vs. The Policy Relaxation Committee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urse, the said shipping bills became ineligible for benefits under the MEIS in terms of the Policy provisions. 16. For the remaining two shipping bills [no. 2043708 dated 27.07.2015 and no. 7147019 dated 19.04.2016], the payment was realized after the expiry of 3 years from the export date and consequently the e-BRC" (Electronic Bank Realization Certificate) was also uploaded at a later date. In this context, the Committee observed that policy relaxation is usually afforded in situation where the payment is received within a period of 3 years but the "e-BRC" (Electronic Bank Realization Certificate) was uploaded by the Bank after expiry of 3 years from the date of export. 17. In the present case, the Committee found that the payment was received much beyond the period stipulated under the Policy. As such, the PRC, after due consideration of the matter, rejected the application of the petitioner, thereby, denying the benefits under the MEIS to the petitioner. 18. The view taken by the PRC neither suffers from any apparent jurisdictional error nor is afflicted on account of perversity / non-consideration of relevant aspects. 19. In the circumstances, this Court finds no justifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Committee, (2017) 165 DRJ 170 had observed that "the powers of the PRC, while making its recommendations are wide and are purely discretionary". 20. The aforesaid view has also been affirmed by a coordinate Bench in M/s Wadpack Pvt. Ltd vs Directorate General of Foreign Trade, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2962 and held as under: "21. As is evident from the reading of the Paragraph 2.5 of the FTP, exemption from following policy/procedure can be granted only in cases of genuine hardship or adverse impact on trade or in public interest. In my opinion, it is not applicable for cases where the exporters, even bona fide, are not vigilant or are lax in compliance with the mandatory conditions. The onus cannot be shifted to the Authorities in such cases to retrospectively determine if the petitioner had otherwise complied with all conditions of Advance Authorization. xxx xxx xxx 23. The PRC had earlier rejected the claim of the petitioner vide its communication dated 17-12-2013 stating that the Committee was not satisfied about the corroborating evidence produced by the petitioner. On challenge made by the petitioner, this Court by an order dated 16-12-2014, passed in WP(C) 8924/2014, tit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
