Allowed

Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India through the Jt. Secty. and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2018WP/10999/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the refusal to relax export obligation discharge requirements. Relying on Larsen and Tubro Ltd., the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the issue of Export Obligation Discharge Certificates.

What did the court decide?

Impugned minutes/orders set aside; respondents directed to issue Export Obligation Discharge Certificate and redeem Advance Authorizations.

Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

10999-18-WP-901=.doc

¶2

Uday S. Jagtap

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10999 OF 2018

¶5

Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

v/s.

¶8

Union of India & Ors.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Mihir Mehta a/w Ms. Shilpa Jain, Mr. Jas Sanghavi I/b PDS Legal for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the respondent

¶12

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &

¶13

RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.J.

¶14

DATED : 27^th SEPTEMBER, 2018.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

By consent of the parties, the petition is taken for final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶17

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the minutes of meetings / orders dated 1^st August, 2017 and 6^th December, 2017 of the Policy Relaxation Committee in the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade – respondent no.2. The impugned minutes of meeting / orders dated 1^st August, 2017 and 6^th December, 2017 passed under paragraph 2.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 refused to relax the requirement of evidencing discharge

¶18

Digitally signed by Uday Uday Shivaji Jagtap Date: Shivaji 2018.09.28 11:05:21 Jagtap +0530

1 of 4

10999-18-WP-901=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

of export obligations in respect of supplies made to SEZ in the absence of assessed copy of bill of export. Thus, not issuing the export obligation discharge certificates so as to enable the petitioner to redeem the Advance Authorizations dated 23^rd June, 2009, 3^rd November, 2010, 16^th November, 2010 and 20^th September, 2012.

¶23

It is the petitioners' case that as they were unable to produce the assessed copy of bill of export in respect of supplies made to SEZ, they sought relaxation of that requirement to evidence discharge of their export obligations by producing other corroborative evidence in the form of ARE-1 which would establish the fulfillment of their export obligations by making supplies to SEZ. In fact, it is submitted that an identical issue had came up before this Court in Larsen and Tubro Ltd. (2018) 360 E.L.T. 289 from the orders of the Policy Relaxation Committee on identical facts and law and this Court allowed the petition. This by holding that failure to file / produce a copy of assessed bill of export in respect of supplies made to SEZ would not by itself necessarily result in holding that there was failure to discharge export obligations, if the party is able to establish the supplies made to SEZ by production of copies of ARE-1. Thus, it is submitted that following the aforesaid decision, the impugned orders / minutes be set

2 of 4

10999-18-WP-901=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

aside and the respondents be directed to issue export obligation discharge certificates in respect of advance authorizations dated 23^rd June, 2009, 3^rd November, 2010, 16^th November, 2010 and 20^th September, 2012.

¶28

Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel appearing in support of the Revenue supports the orders / minutes dated 1^st November, 2017 and 6^th December, 2017 of the Policy Relaxation Committee of respondent no.2.

¶29

However, Mr. Jetly is unable to point out any distinguishing features in this case from that existing in Larsen and Tubro Ltd. (supra) which would warrant our taking a different view in this petition. Therefore, for the reasons indicated in our order in Larsen and Tubro Ltd. (supra) this petition is allowed.

¶30

Accordingly, the impugned minutes / orders dated 1^st August, 2017 and 6^th December, 2017 are set aside. The respondents are further directed to issue Export Obligation Discharge Certificate and redeem the Advance Authorizations dated 23^rd June, 2009, 3^rd November, 2010, 16^th November, 2010 and 20^th September, 2012.

3 of 4

10999-18-WP-901=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶35

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶36

4 of 4

Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India through the Jt. Secty. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India through the Jt. Secty. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Landmark Enterprises Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Mr. Nikhil Sushil Agarwal Partner of Impex LLP Vs Union of India , Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , Mumbai Zone and Ors.

Shubham Jain and Ors. Vs Union of India Thru Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , Mummbai Zonal Unitl and Ors.

Xyz Vs Union of India and Ors.

Fir Payment Solutions and Services India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence and Anr.

The Principal Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise Daman Commissionerate Vs Shri Iqbal R. Hingora Director M/S. Hingora Industries Pvt. Ltd.