Page 112 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

646 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

connected petition also, and therefore, the connected writ petition i.e. W.P No.
18252/2017 also stands dismissed.
24. Let a copy of this order be kept in the connected petition also.
25. Certified copy, as per rules.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 646 (Del.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Navin Chawla, J.
WADPACK PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE

W.P. (C) No. 6045 of 2016, decided on 5-3-2020
EXIM - Advance authorisation licence - Redemption - Export obliga-
tion, non-fulfilment of - Supplies to SEZ - Bill of Export not submitted by peti-
tioner and ARE-1 Forms submitted with the Excise Department at the time of
supplies to SEZ Unit did not bear the endorsement of Advance Authorization
Number or its date - Quantity of input used by petitioner in the goods that was
so supplied, also not specified - Copies of ARE-1 with Advance Authorization
Number and its date stamped by itself on such ARE-1 submitted by petitioner
only when Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) demanded submission of orig-
inal ARE-1 - Exemption from following policy/procedure to be granted only in
cases of genuine hardship or adverse impact on trade or in public interest and
not where exporters, even bona fide, are not vigilant or are lax in compliance
with the mandatory conditions - Decision of PRC not perverse or arbitrary -
Paragraphs 2.5 and 4.13 of Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009, Paragraph 4.12 of
Handbook of Procedure, 2009-2014 as also Paragraph 4.27 of Handbook of Pro-
cedures, 2015-2020 - Section 30 of Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. [paras
20, 22, 25]
SEZ supply - Bill of Export - Requirement of - Filing of Bill of Export
is not mere formality but serves as a valuable check for ensuring that goods
deemed to have been exported are in fact received by SEZ Unit - Only then
goods would be accounted as Deemed Exports - Rule 30 of Special Economic
Zones Rules, 2006. [para 23]
Petition dismissed

CASES CITED
Holoflex Limited v. Union of India — 2019 (366) E.L.T. 203 (Del.) — Relied on ....................... [Paras 9, 23]
Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Union of India
— 2018 (360) E.L.T. 289 (Bom.) — Distinguished .......................................................... [Paras 4, 9, 24]
Shashi Cables Ltd. v. Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT)
— 2019 (365) E.L.T. 798 (Del.) — Relied on .......................................................................... [Paras 7, 25]
Wadpack Private Limited v. Director General of Foreign Trade — W.P. (C). No. 8924 of 2014,
decided on 16-12-2014 by Delhi High Court — Relied on ....................................................... [Para 25]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
D.G.F.T. Circular dated 11-7-2012 ........................................................................................................... [Para 5]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  112