LAWS(APH)-2010-7-132

TIRUPATI UDYOG LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On July 30, 2010
TIRUPATI UDYOG LTD., HYDERABAD Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These batch of writ petitions are filed by Units established in the Special Economic Zone (for short "SEZ"), and units in the Domestic Tariff Area (for short "DTA").

(2.) The petitioners, in W.P. Nos. 11219 of 2008, 21059 of 2008, 21224 of 2008, 1315 of 2009 and 18618 of 2009, question the proceedings of the Development Commissioner dated 17.04.2008, and the consequential proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam SEZ dated 08.05.2008, as illegal and void. By his letter dated 17.04.2008, the Deputy Development Commissioner informed the Assistant Commissioner (Customs), Visakhapatnam SEZ that, pending decision on the issue by the Ministry of Commerce/Central Board of Excise and Customs, the export consignments of SEZ units should be cleared after obtaining a bank guarantee from them covering the value of export duty on export of chrome ore; and a similar procedure should be adopted with regards export of chrome ore by other units in the Visakhapatnam SEZ. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam SEZ, vide letter dated 08.05.2008, informed the petitioner that, henceforth, neither was export duty payable by units of the Visakhapatam SEZ procuring chrome ore & concentrates from DTA suppliers, nor were they required to furnish a bank guarantee in respect of such procurement. The petitioner was informed that the existing stock of chrome ore & concentrates available with SEZ units, which were procured from DTA suppliers without payment of duty could be exported by them on furnishing bank guarantee equivalent to export duty; DTA suppliers would, however, be required to pay export duty, as per the export tariff, at Rs. 3,000/- per metric tonne with immediate effect on the chrome ore & concentrates exported to units of the Visakhapatnam SEZ; a bill of export should be filed by the DTA supplier, or by his authorized representative, for assessment; and, thereafter, the export duty liability had to be discharged by the DTA supplier.

(3.) The petitioners, in W.P. Nos. 15778/08, 16932/08, 16902/08 and 6025 of 2009, question the proceedings dated 30.6.2008 of the Director, SEZ Section, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Government of India, the Circular dated 9.7.2008 issued by the Development Commissioner, Visakhapatnam SEZ, and the proceedings dated 11.7.2008 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kottur -I Division, Hyderabad, as illegal and void.