Rotomac Electricals Ltd. vs Union Of India & Anr on 18 May, 2016

2. Notice of the petition was issued, though no interim relief granted.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The petitioner did not opt

to file rejoinder. Counsels were heard on 2nd December, 2015 and judgment

reserved.

3. It is the case of the petitioner (i) that it is engaged in the business inter

alia of repair and manufacture of traction motors and their spare parts,

insulation materials, tapes and mica products; (ii) that it made an application

dated 28th January, 1999 to the DGFT for issuance of an advance licence under

the Duty Exemption Scheme under the FTDR Act and commenced exporting

the goods as the petitioner already had export orders in hand; (iii) that on 22 nd

December, 1999 the petitioner was issued advance licence for Rs.69,26,100/-

under the Duty Exemption Scheme and which licence was subject to the

condition that the petitioner shall fulfil an export obligation of Rs.1,07,58,600/-

as Free on Board(FOB) value within the stipulated period which was mentioned

of “18 months”, meaning, that there was no cut-off date before which export

could not have been made; (iv) the petitioner submitted the requisite Bank

Guarantee (BG)/Legal Undertaking (LUT) with the Customs Authority inter

alia providing that in the event of default in meeting the export obligation, the

petitioner shall be liable to pay an amount equivalent to the amount of duty

W.P.(C) No.8417/2015 Page 2 of 18
with 15% interest per annum from the date of import of the first consignment

till the date of payment; (v) the petitioner fulfilled the export obligation within

the stipulated period i.e. by 20th April, 1999; (vi) the petitioner was issued three

Bank Certificates of Export and Realisation (BCER) of a total value of more

than the export obligation required to be fulfilled by the petitioner; (vii) that the

petitioner was also issued shipping bills dated 16th February, 1999, 29th

January, 1999 and 20th April, 1999 against the aforesaid BCER; (viii) the

petitioner however misplaced the original shipping bills and though requested

the Customs Authorities for duplicates thereof but to no avail; (ix) that the

petitioner as per para 7.25 of the Handbook of Procedure (1997-2002), as proof

of fulfilment of export obligation was required to submit the BCER and the

Duty Entitlement Exemption Certificate (DEEC) book containing details of

exports and imports; (x) that by mistake the petitioner could not get the entries

of the exports aforesaid made / entered in the DEEC book but since the DEEC

book is nothing more than a reflection of entries of the relevant shipping bills,

the same is not material; (xi) that the petitioner received show cause notice

dated 31st April, 2004 for purported non-fulfillment of export obligation under

the licence aforesaid; (xii) the petitioner submitted a reply dated 19 th May, 2004

to the show cause notice; (xiii) another notice dated 16th December, 2004 was

W.P.(C) No.8417/2015 Page 3 of 18
served on the petitioner and to which a reply dated 31 st December, 2004 was

submitted; and, (xiv) that yet further show cause notices dated 25th May, 2005,

1st December, 2009 and 1st January, 2010 were served on the petitioner and to

which replies dated 14th June, 2005, 8th December, 2009 and 19th January, 2010

were submitted.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*