AGROCROPS EXIM LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. The petitioner claims that it is engaged in the business of exporting agricultural commodities to various countries including Singapore, Thailand, New Zealand, Indonesia, Turkey and Ukraine and Certificate of Import Export Code (IEC) No. 0408006943 was issued on 23-5-2008 by the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner would further state that the Foreign Trade procedures are formulated by the 1st respondent and notified in the Official Gazette and as per Chapter 3 of the procedures provided for promotional measures, exporters of all notified products are entitled to a duty credit of 2% of the FOB value over and above the duty drawback under the Customs Act. The 1st respondent made an amendment vide public notice No. 3 (RE2012)/2009-14, dated 5-6-2012, Appendix 37D of the FPS, in and by which red chilly was added to the list of notified products under ITC (HS Code) 09042010 and that Code was to be used in both the shipping bills and the application for claiming benefits under the focus product scheme, (in short, "FPS"). It is the specific case of the petitioner that at the time of filing the shipping bill on 24-1-2013, a different code viz., 09042219 was assigned in the drop down menu for export of red chilly. Therefore, the petitioner has used the said Code which was made available in the online form. The 2nd respondent, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner stating that the Code in the shipping bills is different from the notified Code. The 1st respondent has subsequently issued notification P.N. No. 52, dated 25-2-2014, wherein certain amendments were made, under which the Code for red chilly was changed to 09042110 and 09042219 and the said notification came into force with effect from September 2014. During the period January 2013 to September 2014, the petitioner was constrained to use different codes in the shipping bills and applications for claiming FPS benefit due to internal changes made by the respective departments in their pre-filled online forms. The petitioner in this regard has submitted a representation dated 10-6-2015 to the 2nd respondent stating among other things that they exported only red chillies and they were not aware of the technical glitch faced during the course of filing the shipping bills for claiming the benefits and the same was brought to their knowledge only at the time of submission of their applications for FPS benefit for the period January 2013 to February 2014 and they are also facing financial crisis on account of rejection of their legitimate claims and prays for consideration of their claims.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that though the said representation was received and acknowledged by the 2nd respondent, no orders have been passed, against which, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Arockiam, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, who submitted that no acknowledgment is available as to the submission and receipt of the said representation dated 10-6-2015 and prays for appropriate orders.