Page 114 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

648 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Union of India, 2018 (360) E.L.T. 289 (Bom.), to submit that in a similar circum-
stance, the High Court had held that where the ARE-1 form had been supplied, it
was only a technical obligation of the said form not mentioning the Advance Au-
thorization Number in the initial copies on which the claim of the petitioner
herein had been rejected, and that the PRC should have accepted the explanation
given by the petitioner therein instead of penalizing the petitioner therein for
such procedural lapse.
5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on the
Circular dated 11-7-2012 issued by the DGFT, granting relaxation under Para 2.5
of the Foreign Trade Policy condoning procedural lapse of non-mention of EPCG
licence number and date on the shipping bills. He submits that similar lapse of
the petitioner of mentioning the Advance Authorization number and date on the
ARE-1 should have been condoned by the PRC.
6. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that even in
ARE-1, it is only the self-declaration of the petitioner that is material. It is made
only for the purpose of ensuring that the party does not obtain the benefit twice
over for the same export. In the present case, apart from the certificate from the
Chartered Accountant, the PRC itself has verified from the concerned Excise De-
partment that the petitioner has not availed such benefits twice over. The
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the ARE-1 has also been
certified by the Customs Authority of the SEZ.
7. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the respondents submits
that the power of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is highly limited and does not extend to relaxation of the
conditions contained in the Handbook of Procedures, which rests exclusively
with the PRC. Unless the decision of the PRC is found to be perverse, arbitrary
and unreasonable, this Court cannot interfere with the same. He places reliance
on the judgment dated 26-9-2018 of this Court in W.P. (C) 10193/2018 titled
Shashi Cables Ltd. v. Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and Anr. [2019
(365) E.L.T. 798 (Del.)].
8. He further submits that the petitioner was well aware of the re-
quirement of submission of documents as prescribed in Paragraph 4.25 of the
Handbook of Procedures (Volume-1), 2004-09 as evidence of fulfilment of export
obligations imposed under the Advance Authorization. He refers to the “Guide-
lines For Applicants”, which require copies of the shipping bills containing de-
tails of shipment effected or Bill of Export in case of export to SEZ unit, to be
submitted for claiming such benefits. He further refers to the SEZ Rules, 2006
and specifically Rule 30(3) thereof, which requires the Bill of Exports to be filed
by the supplier. He submits that the PRC exercises its powers only where it finds
a case of genuine hardship or public interest involved. Merely because a party
has not been vigilant, would not require PRC’s interference.
9. The Learned Counsel for the respondent further submits that the re-
liance of the petitioner on the verification submitted by the Excise Department
would be of no relevance inasmuch as it is the Customs Authority which has to
verify the factum of export against the Advance Authorization. He further relies
upon the judgment of this Court in Holoflex Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and
Ors., 2019 (2) TMI 1576 = 2019 (366) E.L.T. 203 (Del.), which distinguished the
judgment of the Bombay High Court in Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Union of India,
2018 (360) E.L.T. 289 (Bom.), and observed that filing of Bills of Exports is not a
mere formality but serves as a valuable check for ensuring that the goods
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  114