Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether supplies made to a Special Economic Zone could be treated as exports for EPCG redemption when the bill of export was not produced, but the export was otherwise evidenced by other documents.
Analysis: The relief sought fell within the relaxation power under paragraph 2.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014. The issue had already been concluded by prior decisions of the same Court, and the dismissal of the challenge before the Supreme Court had given finality to that position. The Court followed its earlier view that the absence of a bill of export, by itself, cannot defeat export benefit where the export to SEZ is established through other contemporaneous documents. On the facts, the petitioner had also cured the separate objection regarding the revised form.
Conclusion: The absence of a bill of export alone could not justify denial of EPCG export benefit for supplies made to SEZ. The impugned refusal was set aside and the petitioner succeeded.
Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed and the petitioner obtained the requested relief against denial of EPCG redemption on the ground of non-production of the bill of export.
Ratio Decidendi: Where supplies to a Special Economic Zone are otherwise evidenced by reliable documents, non-production of a bill of export alone is not a valid ground to deny export benefit or EPCG redemption.