Page 113 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] WADPACK PRIVATE LIMITED v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE 647

REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Karan Sachdev and Kunal Kapoor, Advocates,
for the Petitioner.
Shri Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms. Kriti
Awasthi, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a Writ
of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to condone the procedural lapse of
supplying the goods to the SEZ units only under ARE-1 without Bills of Exports
with respect to its Advance Authorization No. 0710063364, dated 2-3-2009 as also
for issuance of Redemption Certificate to the petitioner with respect to the said
Advance Authorization.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was issued the Advance Au-
thorization by the respondent No. 2 on 2-3-2009. The petitioner claims to have
supplied the finished goods, that is corrugated boxes, to Nokia Semens and its
units in SEZ units between 2009 to 2011. On 22-5-2012, the petitioner submitted
the documents to respondent No. 2 for issue of Export Obligation Discharge Cer-
tificate (EODC). The respondent No. 2 in turn called upon the petitioner to fur-
nish the Bills of Exports towards goods supplied to the SEZ units as also the
Bank Realization Certificate in Appendix-22A of the Handbook of Procedures.
The petitioner, while submitting the Bank Realization Certificate, instead of Bills
of Exports, submitted the ARE-1 as proof of making exports against Advance
Authorization. The petitioner claims that due to an inadvertent error, the Bills of
Exports were not filed.
3. Pursuant to an order for personal hearing being granted to the peti-
tioner, passed by this Court, the petitioner approached the Policy Relaxation
Committee (PRC) seeking condonation of this lapse. The PRC in its meeting dat-
ed 2-2-2016 observed as under :-
“The case was discussed again at length. The committee was of the view
that in terms of Para 4.12 of FTP, 2009-14, the applicant was required to
mention consumption of exempted materials on export documents along
with file No./Licence No. against that exports are being made towards dis-
charge of export obligation. In terms of Para 4.25 of HBP, 2009-14 read with
ANF-4F for discharge of export obligation, the applicant should submit
original copy of Shipping Bill/Bill of Export, Excise Invoice and Bank Reali-
sation Certificate. However, the applicant has failed to submit these docu-
ments except BRC Certificate issued by Superintendent Central Excise can-
not substitute the documents prescribed in ANF-4F because it does not
prove that duty free imported goods were consumed in the resultant prod-
ucts have been supplied to SEZ unit towards discharge of export obligation
against Advance authorization in question. The Committee, therefore, did
not accede to the request. The applicant is hereby directed to get the case
regularized in terms of Para 4.49 of Hand Book of Procedures, 2015-20.”
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the peti-
tioner admits its mistake of not submitting the Bills of Exports as they were not
generated/filed, the petitioner, in form of ARE-1; its own affidavit along with
statement showing use of imports for finished goods duly certified from the
Chartered Accountant; and a certificate confirming the receipt of goods in the
SEZ as also the Bank Realization Certificate, has produced sufficient proof to
show its entitlement to the fulfilment of exports obligation under the Advance
Authorization and therefore, was entitled to the issuance of the EODC. He places
reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Larsen & Toubro Limited v.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  113