PHOENIX INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the legality and validity of decisions taken by the Policy Relaxation Committee ("PRC") in meeting No.07/AM23 held on 21/6/2022 and meeting No.08/AM24 held on 26/6/2023, interalia, rejecting request of Petitioner by holding that "Bill of Export" is a mandatory document in terms of Foreign Trade Policy ("FTP") for discharge of Export Obligation ("EO") of Advance Authorisation ("AA") even in case of supplies to Special Economic Zone Unit ("SEZ"). According to Petitioner the action on part of Respondents in not accepting the supplies made by Petitioner to units located in the SEZ in discharge of EO against AA issued to Petitioner solely on the ground of non-submission of "Bills of Export", notwithstanding other evidence on record substantiating Petitioner's claim of export, is bad in law.

(3.) Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing, refining and export of Non-Ferrous Metal Alloys from its units situated in Dadra-Nagar Haveli, Silvassa. Petitioner had received purchase orders from one Ideal Fasteners (India) Pvt. Ltd. located in SEZ for manufacture and supply of Zinc Alloy Ingots Zamak-5. Accordingly, Petitioner obtained an AA for the purpose of duty-free import of goods stated therein to be used in export of final products Zinc Alloy Ingots Zamak-5 to its customers located in the SEZ. Petitioner was permitted to import goods of CIF value of Rs.3,73,79,160.00 against which export obligation of FOB value of Rs.4,36,25,000.00 was under the AA. According to Petitioner, and admittedly so, supply of goods to units located in SEZ is deemed export and treated to be valid discharge of export obligation for the purpose of the aforesaid AA in terms of FTP. Undisputedly, the final products of Petitioner were exported / supplied to its customer within the SEZ, but due to an inadvertent error while supplying the goods neither Petitioner nor the buyers on behalf of Petitioner prepared and filed the "Bills of Export" corresponding to the said supplies made by Petitioner under the said licenses. It is not disputed that other than the Bill of Export, Petitioner had supplied all other documents including the application in ARE-1 duly assessed by proper officer having jurisdiction over the factory of Petitioner and authorised officer having jurisdiction over the units located in SEZ have been submitted. As the export obligation period expired, Petitioner sought an extension to Respondent No.3 which was granted and the license validity date was amended from 24/6/2017 to 23/12/2017.