NULUX ENGINEERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No.1, which is a partnership firm, has filed the present petition challenging Order in Original No. KDL/Dy. Commr/GR -VII/25/2000 dated 10.11.2000 passed by by Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr. VII), Kandla [Annexure "F"].

(2.) THE petitioner Company is engaged in the business of export of engineering goods like Crankshafts, Cam -shafts, Ball/roller/thust/clutch release iron casting etc. The petitioner firm has exported eight consignments of above referred type of engineering products from Kandla Port under eight different shipping bills. The Central Government has framed an Act known as the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Section 9 of the said Act empowers the Director General or an officer authorised by him to grant, renew or refuse to grant or renew a licence. Sections 3 and 5 of the said Act confers power upon the central government to make provisions for development and regulation of foreign trade and in exercise of this power, the Central Government has been announcing / declaring Export -Import Police [Exim Policy] from time to time. The Central Government has declared Exim Policy for the period 1997 -2002. It is submitted that in chapter 7 of the Hand Book of Procedure (Volume I), the policy contains Duty Exemption / Remission Scheme. It is further submitted that paragraph 7.32 of the policy provided for Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB). It is submitted that Chapter 7 of the Exim Policy deals with the DEPB Scheme. It is submitted that under the DEPB Scheme, different credit rates are prescribed for various goods and credit for each export of the goods is to be given by the licensing authority to the exporter in accordance with the rates so prescribed. It is submitted that under the provisions of paragraph 7.43, after the licencing authority has issued the DEPB licence, the customs has to verify the details of the export as given on the DEPB with a view to ensure whether the details of the exports as given on the DEPB were as per Customs records or not. Save and except this verification before allowing the imports against DEPB, the Customs Department has no other jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner firm exported various engineering goods under eight different shipping bills. All the exports were made from Kandla Port. All the eight shipping bills were scrutinized and finally assessed by the Customers Officer at Kandla Port. After the shipping bills were so finally assessed, the petitioner firm applied for DEPB licence before the Director General of Foreign Trade [DGFT] at Mumbai. The DGFT issued six DEPB licences as detailed in paragraph 3.11 of the petition. After the above licences were issued in favour of the petitioner firm, they were produced before the 3rd respondent herein for verification, as contemplated under paragraph 7.43 of the ITC policy. It is submitted that though the customs authorities have no jurisdiction, the customs authorities issued show cause notice to the petitioner proposing therein to deny the DEPB benefit under serial Nos. 78 and 461. The petitioner firm filed a reply to the show cause notice. A notice was also issued to the petitioner firm fixing a personal hearing in this case before the 2nd respondent. Petitioner filed an application requesting the Commissioner of Customs for an adjournment. However, the 2nd respondent passed an Order and held that DEPB benefit of exports covered under the show cause notice was not applicable and, therefore, DEPB credit of Rs.6,23,080/ - was denied. The said order is impugned in the present petition. It is submitted that the action of the 2nd respondent defeats the Exim policy and also the Government's objective to boost up exports for earning foreign exchange.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the respective parties and as the parties are at ad -idem with the contentions raised in the petition and since question involved in the present petition is covered by the decision dated 21.12.2005 rendered by this Court, to which one of us was a party] [Coram: D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ.] in Special Civil Applications No. 1327/01, 2380/01 and 1326/01 in the case of Economic Traders (Guj) Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India and Others, it is not necessary to enter into discussion on merits of the controversy between the parties and hence neither detailed facts nor submissions of the respective sides are required to be recorded.