The Bombay High Court ruled that non-submission of “bill of export” can’t be treated as non-discharge of proof of EO.
The bench noted that the Special Leave Petition that was preferred by Union of India against the order and judgment of the Court was dismissed pursuant to Union of India vs. Larsen & Toubro Limited.
The bench said that the law as its stands today is that if the party is able to show the proof of supply to SEZ Unit, then non-submission of “Bill of Export” cannot be treated as non-discharge of proof of EO.
Facts
Petitioner has approached the Court challenging the legality and validity of decisions taken by the Policy Relaxation Committee in meeting interalia, rejecting request of Petitioner by holding that “Bill of Export” is a mandatory document in terms of Foreign Trade Policy for discharge of Export Obligation of Advance Authorisation even in case of supplies to Special Economic Zone Unit.
According to Petitioner the action on part of Respondents in not accepting the supplies made by Petitioner to units located in the SEZ in discharge of EO against AA issued to Petitioner solely on the ground of non-submission of “Bills of Export”, notwithstanding other evidence on record substantiating Petitioner’s claim of export, is bad in law.
Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing, refining and export of Non-Ferrous Metal Alloys from its units situated in Dadra-Nagar Haveli, Silvassa. Petitioner had received purchase orders from one Ideal Fasteners (India) Pvt. Ltd. located in SEZ for manufacture and supply of Zinc Alloy Ingots Zamak-5.
Accordingly, Petitioner obtained an AA for the purpose of duty-free import of goods stated therein to be used in export of final products Zinc Alloy Ingots Zamak-5 to its customers located in the SEZ. Petitioner was permitted to import goods of CIF value of Rs.3,73,79,160/- against which export obligation of FOB value of Rs.4,36,25,000/- was under the AA.
According to Petitioner, and admittedly so, supply of goods to units located in SEZ is deemed export and treated to be valid discharge of export obligation for the purpose of the aforesaid AA in terms of FTP.
Submissions
Mr. Shah, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the refusal to relax export obligations in respect of supplies made to SEZ in the absence of assessed copy of “Bill of Export” has been held to be unjustified.
Conclusion
“Mr. Shah states that aforesaid documents will be submitted within two weeks from today. The same will be examined by Respondents and if the documents are in order, the EODC shall be issued within four weeks of the submissions of the documents. If Respondents have any query they shall give a personal hearing, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast 3 working days in advance”, the court said.
Case Details
Case Name: Phoenix Industries Limited V/S The Union of India
Citation: WRIT PETITION NO.15057 OF 2023
Court: Bombay High Court
Coram: Justice K. R. Shriram And Justice Jitendra Jain
