Court directs respondent to verify petitioner's export obligations during license issuance; action required if obligations not fulfilled.

The court directed the respondent to verify if the petitioner fulfilled export obligations when the exemption existed during license issuance. If verified, no action was needed; if not, assessment was required. The respondent was given four months to complete verification and take necessary actions, with proper notice to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of under these terms, and the pending application was resolved accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
Refusal of customs levy exemption for goods imported for export obligations under Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 post-GST implementation.

Analysis:
The petitioner's grievance was the denial of exemption from customs levy for goods imported to fulfill export obligations post-GST implementation. The petitioner had advance authorizations under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20. The petitioner argued that existing exemptions under custom notifications should not have been denied due to the introduction of GST from 01.07.2017. An interim order was issued on 11.10.2017, granting relief to exporters and directing the petitioner not to pay IGST for imported gold bars under the advance authorizations until the final decision. The respondent later extended exemption benefits to IGST under the IGST levy, not covered by the amended custom notifications of 29.06.2017.

The imports subject to the petition were made after the GST regime began, with the petitioner holding an advance license issued on 17.07.2017, predating the exemption notifications issued on 29.06.2017. The exemption of IGST was not in effect at the time of the license issuance, as the customs notification amending it was on 13.10.2017. The court opined that as the exemption existed when the petitioner obtained the license, authorities should verify if export obligations were fulfilled. If confirmed, no further action was required; if not, appropriate assessment under the law was necessary. The respondent was directed to complete verification and any subsequent actions within four months with proper notice and opportunity for the petitioner.

The judgment disposed of the writ petition under the stated terms, with the pending application also being resolved accordingly.

---