MID INDIA INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a limited company, is a hundred percent Export Oriented Unit (EOU) and has set -up a factory for manufacture of various types of yarns at Mandsaur (M.P.). The Development Commissioner. (NEPZ). Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, vide letter dated 12.10.1999 (Annexure P -5) has accorded permission to the petitioner - Company for sale of cotton yarn/polyster yam / poly cotton yarn worth Rs. 404,53 lacs in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) on payment of applicable customs and central excise duties and other taxes, subject to certain conditions. This permission was granted under the Export and Import Policy (1997 -2002) announced by the Government of India. However, respondent No. 4. The Superintendent, Central Excise and Customs, Range : Mandsaur has on 1.5.2000 asked the petitioner to stop its despatches meant for sale in Domestic Tariff Area. It appears that no written formal order in this behalf was passed by respondent No. 4 Petitioner on 14.6.2000 served a demand of justice notice on respondents requiring them not to stop its despatches and allow the same on payment of requisite duty and taxes which the petitioner was always willing and is still willing to pay. No action has, however, been taken by the respondents on the said notice (Annexure P -7) and it appears that respondent No. 4 is not willing to allow the petitioner - Unit to clear the goods in DTA even after payment of requisite duty and taxes.

(2.) THE respondents in their reply have taken a rather strange plea that no permission in terms of Annexure - 5 could be accorded by the Development Commissioner for clearance of the said goods in DTA unless the petitioner had fulfilled the condition as reflected in para 9.9 of the EXIM Policy 1997 -2002. I have heard learned counsellor the parties. Under the EXIM Policy 1997 - 2002, the jurisdiction to grant permission for sale of goods in DTA vests in the Development Commissioner, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce. I am afraid, the respondent No. 4 cannot sit in judgment over any such permission granted by the Development Commissioner and prevent the petitioner from selling its goods in DTA. Faced with this problem, Shri Neema, learned standing counsel for Union of India submitted that a reference is being made by the Authorities of the Central Excise and Customs, Mandsaur and Indore to the Government of India to resolve the dispute arising from the Order Annexure P -5. Be that as it may, the petitioner is entitled for sale of its goods in DTA in accordance with the Order Annexure P -5,

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , I allow this petition and command the respondent - Authorities to permit petitioner Unit to remove its goods in Domestic Tariff Area against payment of Central Excise Duty in accordance with the permission Annexure P -5 given by the Development Commissioner. There shall be, however, no order as to costs of this petition.