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>Court upholds JDGFT's classification of Leather Jacket Fish for MEIS benefits, advises appeal process.</h1> <h3>M/s A.S. MARINE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., M/s. FREEZE EXIM, M/s. FRONTLINE EXPORTS PVT. LTD, M/s DOLPHIN WIRES PVT. LTD Versus FOREIGN TRADE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY</h3> M/s A.S. MARINE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., M/s. FREEZE EXIM, M/s. FRONTLINE EXPORTS PVT. LTD, M/s DOLPHIN WIRES PVT. LTD Versus FOREIGN TRADE DEVELOPMENT ... Issues:Challenge to orders of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (JDGFT) regarding MEIS benefits on export of Leather Jacket Fish under incorrect classification.Analysis:The writ petitions challenge the orders of the JDGFT regarding the classification of Leather Jacket Fish for MEIS benefits. The JDGFT found that the petitioners incorrectly claimed benefits for exporting fish under the 'Carangidae' family, which did not qualify for benefits during the export period. The JDGFT directed the petitioners to surrender unutilized MEIS scrips and placed their company under the Denied Entity List until compliance.The main contention was that the JDGFT exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on classification matters, which should fall under the Customs authorities' purview. However, the court disagreed, stating that the JDGFT's actions were within the scope of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act and Rules. The JDGFT's power to address misclassification and misdeclaration of goods for export benefits was deemed legitimate under the Act.The court emphasized that while Customs authorities handle classification for duty purposes, the JDGFT retains authority under the Foreign Trade Act. As the JDGFT's actions were based on misclassification findings, the court ruled that there was no jurisdictional error. It also noted that an appeal process existed for petitioners to challenge JDGFT orders before the DGFT.Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the JDGFT's orders, advising petitioners to pursue the appeal process provided under the Foreign Trade Act. The judgment upheld the JDGFT's actions as valid within its jurisdiction, allowing petitioners to seek recourse through the appellate authority.
TaxTMI 