2018 (3) TMI 1295 - HC - Customs

Court Orders DGFT Action on Petitioner's Exclusion from Customs Alert List

M/s. Rha Enterprises Versus Union Of India And Anr.

The court directed the DGFT to take necessary actions if no response was received from DRI within four weeks regarding the petitioner's exclusion from the ... Petitioner has not been issued duty credit scrips under the Merchandise Exports From India Export Scheme in terms of Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy - Held that: - the respondent no.2/DGFT will once again write to its counterpart in the DRI, that is, the investigating authority and put it to notice that if no response is received within four weeks of receipt of its communication, it will issue duty credit scrips in favour of the petitioner - The respondent no.2/DGFT will also telephonically interface with his counterpart in the DRI to hasten the matter - petition disposed off. Issues:Petitioner not issued duty credit scrips under the Merchandise Exports From India Export Scheme; Refusal based on alert issued by Customs Department/DRI; Petitioner's name on the list of entities/firms affected by the alert; DRI issued an updated list excluding some firms; Petitioner not receiving duty credit scrips despite exclusion from the initial list; Writ petition filed due to lack of progress; Counter affidavit filed by respondents seeking clarification from investigating authority; DGFT seeking response from DRI before issuing duty credit scrips; Court's directions to DGFT to take necessary actions if no response received within four weeks.Analysis:The petitioner's main grievance in this case is the non-issuance of duty credit scrips under the Merchandise Exports From India Export Scheme, governed by the Foreign Trade Policy for the period 2015-2020. The respondents initially denied issuing duty credit scrips due to an alert issued by the Customs Department/DRI regarding 488 entities/firms, including the petitioner. This alert led to the exclusion of affected entities from export benefits. However, the situation changed when DRI issued an updated list excluding 45 firms, including the petitioner, from the original list.Despite being excluded from the initial list, the petitioner continued to face challenges in obtaining duty credit scrips. Several letters were written to the respondents between April and August 2016, highlighting the petitioner's exclusion and seeking resolution. As there was no progress, a writ petition was filed in December 2016. The respondents, through a counter affidavit, indicated that they had corresponded with the investigating authority seeking clarification on the petitioner's status.The court noted the communication between DGFT and the investigating authority, DRI, requesting a specific response regarding the petitioner's exclusion from the list. The respondents expressed their inability to proceed without a response from DRI. Consequently, the court issued directions to DGFT to write to DRI again, setting a deadline for response. If no response was received within four weeks, DGFT was instructed to issue duty credit scrips to the petitioner and to expedite the process through telephonic communication.Additionally, the court examined a letter from DRI dated April 5, 2016, listing exporters affected by the alert, which included the petitioner. The court directed DGFT to act upon this communication and issue duty credit scrips to the petitioner if found genuine. This detailed analysis highlights the issues, the sequence of events, the legal arguments presented, and the court's directions to resolve the matter effectively.