WIPRO INFOTECH LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18-3-1993 bearing No. F. No. 601/4201/14-15/ 93-DPK dated 18-3-1993 as well as the consequential endorsement bearing No. F. No. 601/4201/14-15/93-DPK dated 10-11-1993, marked as Annexure-'j' and 'n' respectively to the writ petition, and prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant the duty drawback to the petitioner against the application dated 8-3-1993, (Annexure-'h') and to issue such orders, directions or reliefs as this Court deems fit.

(2.) THE facts of the case in the nut-shell are that vide Annexure-B to the writ petition, the petitioner entered into an export contract with M/s. J. V. Belcom, Minsk, Belarus, for supply of 513 numbers of EX-1000 Printers under Supplement No. 7 dated 24-1-1992 to their export contract bearing No. Wipro/belcom/1/91 dated 15-5-1991 and that payments for the export were being made, according to petitioners, through a letter of credit. Same were being realised from an Escrow account maintained by M/s J. V. Belcom with the City Bank, Bombay. The petitioner's case is that in order to avail the benefits of the Duty Exemption Scheme, the petitioner through their letter dated 27-4-1992 applied for an Advance Licence under token No. 21 with the Joint Controller of Imports and Exports popularly known as of Director General of foreign Trade for the balance of 413 numbers of printers to be exported and the C. I. F. value thereof has been mentioned as Rs. 20,12,334. 00. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner's application was rejected vide order dated 6-7-1992, as communicated by the Chief Controller of imports and Exports and it, vide order/endorsement dated 6-7-1992 was rejected on the ground that the value addition offered for R. P. A. exports was very low. The petitioner further alleges that the petitioner was advised to file a fresh application for advance loan by indicating the value addition norm to 223% as against 108% and he filed a revised application vide letter dated 9-10-1992 wherein the C. I. F. imports were shown as Rs. 12,58,967. 00. The petitioner vide communication dated 15-1-1993, was informed by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports that his second application was rejected on the ground that the export realisation was not in U. S. Dollars and same could be considered only if export obligations were realised in U. S. Dollars. Pursuant to that, the petitioner forgoed their application for advance licence as it was impossible to realise the export in U. S. Dollars. The petitioner further alleges that when his application for advance licence was rejected, they filed an application for availing the benefits of the duty drawback scheme. The petitioner alleged in paragraph 9 of the petition that the benefits of the duty-drawback scheme could not be availed of earlier in view of the legal position as then existed, and it was to the effect that if advance licence was being availed of simultaneously, then duty drawback scheme benefits could not be availed. The petitioner's case is that he moved therefore an application on 8-3-1993 claiming the benefits of the duty drawback scheme. The petitioner's application, vide letter dated 18-3-1993, had been rejected on the ground that it was barred by time. According to the petitioner's case, thereafter he submitted an explanation indicating the facts and circumstances on account of which the delay was caused in moving the application for availing the drawback scheme benefits. But the Ministry of Finance, vide letter dated 21-4-1993, rejected that application and that was communicated to the petitioner on 29-3-1993. The petitioner addressed another letter on 24-5-1993 for acceptance of their claim for drawback and also filed an application dated 7-10-1993 for exercise of power conferred on the central Government vide Rule 15 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971, for relaxation. According to the petitioner, same were rejected by the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 10-11-1993. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the petitioner has come up before this Court by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) ON notice having been issued to the respondents, counter affidavit had been filed on 9-3-1995. I feel sorry to mention that in the file, the counter affidavit has not been placed. The learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that a copy of the counter affidavit/statement of objections had been served on the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel for the Government of India namely shri M. V. Vedhachala has supplied to this court an electrostat copy of that affidavit.