TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 Supports Company's MEIS Scrip Eligibility, Criticizes DGFT's Actions, and Orders Revalidation for Export Promotion.</h1> The HC upheld the decision favoring the Respondent Company, affirming their eligibility for MEIS Scrips under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020. The ... Cancellation of the MEIS Scrips granted to the Respondent Company confirmed - levy of penalty - Respondent Company was placed on the Denied Entry List which constituted a complete prohibition on availing any licenses and / or benefits from the DGFT - HELD THAT:- The case of the DGFT is that the Respondent Company misrepresented their destination as France in the Bill of Export and that the actual consignee of the supplied goods is Siddhartha Logistics - In the considered opinion of this Court, the contention advanced by the DGFT is contrary to the factual position evidenced by the documents and payments on record. The Respondent Company has produced its Export Invoice, Bill of Export, and e-Bank Realisation Certificates which clearly establish the relationship of buyer and seller between the Respondent Company and DA. The initial supply of goods by the exporter to a logistics company is purely facilitative, for the purpose of convenience. Therefore, the relevant provisions of the FTP dealing with MEIS Scrips cannot be interpreted in a manner that permits secondary facilitative transactions to supplant the principal export transaction thus preventing actual exporters from obtaining the benefit of MEIS Scrips. This Court is of the view that the successive orders passed by the Asst. DGFT and the Addl. DGFT display a lack of application of mind by the afore-noted authorities and their refusal to consider the decision delivered by the Madras High Court in Jindal Drugs [2021 (7) TMI 1034 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], which was presented by the Respondent Company on two occasions, in their reply and their appeal, is erroneous. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the Impugned Judgement whereby the Learned Single Judge set aside the Impugned Actions and directed the concerned authorities to revalidate the MEIS Scrips previously issued to the Respondent Company - patent appeal dismissed. Issues involved:The judgment involves the issue of eligibility for MEIS Scrips under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 based on the interpretation of relevant clauses and the factual assessment of the export transaction.Summary:1. The Appellant, DGFT, challenged the Impugned Judgment in a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the decision favoring the Respondent Company in a Writ Petition regarding the eligibility for MEIS Scrips.2. The Respondent Company received foreign remittances for supplying goods to Dedienne Aerospace, France, through Siddhartha Logistics in a Free Trade Warehousing Zone (FTWZ).3. The Respondent Company applied for MEIS Scrips against the Bill of Export, which was later proposed to be canceled by the Asst. DGFT due to misrepresentation of the supply destination.4. The Respondent Company cited a Madras High Court judgment to support their case that the FTWZ was a facilitator of export, not the actual consignee.5. The Asst. DGFT canceled the MEIS Scrips, imposed a penalty, and placed the Respondent Company on the Denied Entry List, leading to the Writ Petition.6. The Learned Single Judge set aside the Impugned Actions, directing revalidation of the MEIS Scrips, based on the factual assessment that the principal export transaction was between the Respondent Company and Dedienne Aerospace.7. The DGFT contended that the supply from the Respondent Company to Siddhartha Logistics constituted an ineligible category under the FTP.8. The Court found that the documents established the relationship between the Respondent Company and Dedienne Aerospace, with Siddhartha Logistics acting as an intermediary for storage purposes.9. The Court highlighted the policy objectives of MEIS Scrips to promote exports and concluded that the DGFT's interpretation would defeat the purpose of the scheme.10. The Court upheld the Impugned Judgment, emphasizing that the actual exporter should be considered for MEIS Scrips, not secondary facilitative transactions.11. The Court criticized the lack of application of mind by the DGFT authorities and upheld the direction to revalidate the MEIS Scrips for the Respondent Company.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
