Delhi High Court
P S G Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 20 July, 2012
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON: 20.07.2012
+ W.P. (C) 7418/2011
P S G STEEL PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vibhu Shanker Mishra, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with
Mr. Tushar Singh, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel with
Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Jr. Standing Counsel
for Resp-2-4.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR
MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. The petitioner claims a direction in the nature of mandamus to the first
respondent to issue instructions to revalidate its scrip which entitled it to
customs duty concessions for a period of six months in terms of Serve From
WP (C) 7418/2011 Page 1
India Scheme (SFIS). The beneficiaries of that policy, like the petitioner
are entitled to exemption from customs duty in respect of capital goods
imported during the period of the scrip's authorization. In this case, the scrip
was issued to the petitioner on 15.04.2009 and was valid in terms of the
scheme till 30.04.2011.
2. The petitioner, who had availed of the facility of the customs duty
exemption in terms of the SFIS, had apparently entered into contract for
purchase of certain equipment from Italy on 18.4.2011. The goods were
shipped on 18.04.2011 from Antwerp and landed at the Inland Container
Depot, Faridabad on 26.05.2011. By this time, the validity of the scrip had
expired (on 30.04.2011). The petitioner was, therefore, required to pay
duty.
3. It is urged that the petitioner was asked to seek revalidation of the
scrip under the SFIS which it did. Apparently, the request for revalidation
was turned down by the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) on 29.08.2011.
4. The writ petitioner urges that in terms of the public notice issued by
the respondents, the shipment ought to have been cleared duty free as the
validity in terms of the said advertisement would extend till that time the
goods landed.
5. In reply, the respondents urge that the terms of the scrip were clear as
was evident from the reading of the Handbook of Procedure. In response, it
is further argued that the validity period and revalidation is in terms of
paragraph 3.11.7 which reads as follows: -
"3.11.7 Duty Credit scrip shall be valid for a period of 24
months. Revalidation of Duty Credit scrip shall not be
permitted unless covered under paragraph 2.13.1 or paragraph
WP (C) 7418/2011 Page 2
2.13.2 A of HBP v1."
6. Counsel also relies upon paragraph 2.13.1 which is in the following
terms: -
"However, revalidation of freely transferable
Authorization/Duty credit scrips and stock and sale
Authorization shall not be permitted unless validity has expired
while in custody of Customs authority/RA."
7. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. The terms
of the SFIS and the authorization issued under it were clear i.e. that the
benefits could be availed for the period of two years. In case of shipment
on high seas, the policy provided the extension of concession if the validity
period lapsed when the shipment had landed at any Indian port. In other
words, in the present case, if the goods had reached in the India by the date
of expiry of the authorization i.e.30.04.2011, the petitioner could have
qualified for extension to facilitate their clearance. However, such was not
the case. The goods in fact reached on 26.05.2011 - a fact known to the
petitioner when it booked them after entering into contract with the foreign
supplier, on 18.04.2011. Having regard to these circumstances, the
respondents' action directing payment of full duty and refusal to give the
benefit cannot be characterized as unreasonable.
8. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the order of the Policy
Relaxation Committee (PRC) is appealable under Section-15 of the Foreign
Trade Development Act, 1992 to the Central Government. This Court is of
the opinion that the petitioner should be permitted to avail of that remedy.
In case there is any delay, the said authority shall consider the appeal on its
merits provided the petitioner approaches it within a period of two weeks
WP (C) 7418/2011 Page 3
from today.
9. In view of the above conclusions, this Court is of the opinion that the
relief claimed cannot be granted.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed but subject to the above
directions.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
R.V. EASWAR
(JUDGE)
JULY 20, 2012
/vks/
WP (C) 7418/2011 Page 4
