TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Directs Prompt EODC Issuance Review</h1> <h3>Kivi Sansho Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Shyamprabha Smartpack Pvt. Ltd., Versus Union of India Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue The Commissioner Of Customs</h3> Kivi Sansho Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Shyamprabha Smartpack Pvt. Ltd., Versus Union of India Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue The Commissioner Of ... Issues:Assailing show-cause notices seeking direction for EPCG authorization extension.Analysis:The petitioners challenged show-cause notices issued by respondent No.2 and No.3, requesting a direction for considering their representations dated 01.03.2017 and rectification letter dated 21.03.2017 for extending EPCG authorization. Petitioner companies engaged in packaging material manufacture were aggrieved by the notices contrary to the EPCG Committee's decision allowing transfer of authorization. The petitioners argued that the notices lacked proper consideration and emphasized the necessity of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) issuance by respondent No.4 before any final decision. They sought a direction for expedited EODC issuance to prevent adverse consequences. On the other hand, respondents contended that the adjudicating authority must consider the objections before taking a decision, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures and timelines. They argued that the actions of respondent Nos.2 and 3 should not depend on EODC issuance by respondent No.4, urging permission to proceed as per the law.The High Court, after hearing both parties, acknowledged the EPCG Committee's decision allowing the transfer of authorization. It recognized the petitioners' concerns regarding the customs department's actions against the Committee's decision and the importance of EODC issuance. The Court emphasized that respondent No.2, as the adjudicating authority, needed to make a final decision considering all relevant aspects, including EODC issuance by respondent No.4. Consequently, the Court directed respondent No.4 to promptly consider the petitioners' representations and rectification letters, urging an expedited decision on EODC issuance to the petitioners. Respondent No.4 was instructed to make a decision within four weeks, allowing the petitioners to submit additional documents if needed. It was clarified that respondent Nos.2 and 3 should refrain from making any final decisions until respondent No.4's decision and subsequent adjudication. The Court disposed of the writ petitions with these directions and observations, ensuring a fair and timely resolution of the matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
