Page 117 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] WADPACK PRIVATE LIMITED v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE 651

(11) The Unit or Developer may also procure goods from Domestic Tariff
Area without availing exemptions, drawbacks and concessions on the basis
of invoice or transport documents, issued by the supplier :
Provided that such invoices or transport documents shall be endorsed to
the effect that no exemptions, drawbacks and concessions have been
availed on the said supplies.”
20. A reading of the above provisions would clearly show that the Bill
of Export is an essential document to be submitted for claiming discharge of
export-obligation under the Advance Authorization. The petitioner admits that
in the present case it did not submit the Bill of Export and therefore, claims ex-
emption under Paragraph 2.5 of the FTP. It is further admitted that the ARE-1
Forms that were submitted with the Excise Department at the time of supplies to
the SEZ Unit did not bear the endorsement of the Advance Authorization Num-
ber or its date. It also did not specify the quantity of input used by the petitioner
in the goods that was so supplied. It is only when the PRC demanded submis-
sion of original ARE-1, that the petitioner submitted copies of the ARE-1 with the
Advance Authorization Number and its date stamped by itself on such ARE-1.
21. Besides, petitioner’s statement of having worked and manufactured
boxes for the past 39 years further weakens his claim in the petition. There is no
explanation as to why the petitioner supplied goods only under cover of ARE-1
and not with Bill of Export except for it being an inadvertent mistake. A market
player in business for this long would be expected to comply with formalities
and file all relevant documents timely.
22. As is evident from the reading of the Paragraph 2.5 of the FTP, ex-
emption from following policy/procedure can be granted only in cases of genu-
ine hardship or adverse impact on trade or in public interest. In my opinion, it is
not applicable for cases where the exporters, even bona fide, are not vigilant or are
lax in compliance with the mandatory conditions. The onus cannot be shifted to
the Authorities in such cases to retrospectively determine if the petitioner had
otherwise complied with all conditions of Advance Authorization.
23. As held by this Court in Holoflex Limited (supra), filing of Bill of Ex-
port is not a mere formality but serves as a valuable check for ensuring that the
goods deemed to have been exported are in fact received by the SEZ unit and are
accounted as Deemed Exports. These goods, if they are to be claimed for export
entitlement, are put to scrutiny by the Authorized Officer before they are al-
lowed entry into the SEZ.
24. The judgment of the Bombay High Court in Larsen & Toubro Limited
(supra), can also be of no avail to the petitioner. In the said case, the Court was
persuaded in favour of the petitioner therein as the claim of the petitioner had
been verified and endorsed by the Range Superintendent, Central Excise and the
Development Commissioner of the SEZ. It was found not to be just a self-
generated version or a self-certification. In the present case, however, the peti-
tioner has merely put a rubber stamp on the copy of ARE-1(s) subsequently
without such claim having been endorsed from the concerned Authority. The
affidavit and the certificate from the Chartered Accountant are also self-serving
documents. In fact, in the representation submitted to the PRC, the petitioner
revised its claim from 409.571 MTs of corrugated boxes having a value of Rs.
1,79,82,784/- having been supplied, to 414.657 MTs of a value of Rs.
3,25,36,085.70. This itself shows that the claim of the petitioner could not have
been taken on its face value.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  117