Interest demand upheld under Foreign Trade Rules: Contractual obligation, not Customs Act

The court upheld the demand for interest by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade as legally valid and enforceable under the terms of the bond executed by the petitioner. The court found that the demand for interest was backed by Rule 6(2)(b) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, and clarified that it was a contractual obligation, not governed by the Customs Act. The court dismissed the petition, affirming the legality of the interest demand.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the demand for interest by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade.
2. Validity of the bond executed by the petitioner for payment of interest.
3. Applicability of the Customs Act and Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 concerning the demand for interest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the demand for interest by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade:
The petitioner contended that neither the Customs Act nor the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, empowered the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade to demand interest for failure to fulfill export obligations. The court, however, found that while the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, does not explicitly provide for such interest, Rule 6(2)(b) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, allows the licensing authority to require the execution of a bond to comply with the terms of the license. Thus, the demand for interest is legally backed by the bond executed under this rule.

2. Validity of the bond executed by the petitioner for payment of interest:
The court noted that the petitioner executed a bond agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 24% in case of failure to fulfill export obligations. The petitioner argued that this condition was void for lack of legal sanction. The court rejected this argument, stating that the bond was executed under the authority of Rule 6(2)(b) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, which provides the legal backing for such bonds. Therefore, the bond and its terms, including the interest clause, were valid and enforceable.

3. Applicability of the Customs Act and Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 concerning the demand for interest:
The court clarified that the interest demanded was not under the Customs Act but under the bond executed as per the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Rexnord Electronics and Controls Limited vs. Union of India, which distinguished between interest payable under the Customs Act and interest payable under a bond executed as per the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The court held that the demand for interest under the bond was a contractual obligation and not within the purview of the Customs Act.

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the demand for interest by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade as legally valid and enforceable under the terms of the bond executed by the petitioner.

---