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>Review cannot serve as appeal in disguise for belated revalidation of Advance Authorizations</h1> <h3>Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, Excise & Legal, Madurai Versus The Director General of Foreign Trade, The Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC), O/o. Directorate General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, The Joint Director of General of Foreign Trade, Madurai, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin</h3> Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, Excise & Legal, Madurai Versus The Director General of Foreign Trade, The Policy Relaxation Committee ... Issues Involved:1. Error apparent on the face of the record.2. Applicability of amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy.3. Jurisdiction and scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 of CPC.4. Timeliness and validity of applications for revalidation of Advance Authorizations.Summary:1. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:The petitioner filed a Review Application to review the order dated 19.09.2022 in W.P.(MD).No.15613 of 2016, arguing that there was an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner contended that the Court failed to consider amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy for the period 2009-2014, effective from 27.08.2009, as amended by Public Notice No. 45(RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 07.08.2008.2. Applicability of Amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy:The petitioner argued that if the amendment to paragraph 9.3 of the Handbook of Procedures to the Foreign Trade Policy had been considered, the Court's conclusion would have been different. Paragraph 9.3 allowed for late applications with a penalty, which the petitioner believed should have been applied to their case.3. Jurisdiction and Scope of Review:The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that the Review Application was essentially an appeal in disguise, which is not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 of CPC. The respondents cited a recent Supreme Court decision (S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185) to support their argument that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in a similar case.4. Timeliness and Validity of Applications for Revalidation:The Court noted that the amendments to the Handbook of Procedures were already considered in the original order dated 19.09.2022. The petitioner's application for revalidation was filed long after the validity period of the respective Advance Authorizations had expired. The Court reiterated that revalidation could only be granted for six months from the date of expiry of the original authorization, and the petitioner's application was filed well beyond this period.Conclusion:The Court concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and that the detailed order did not warrant a review. The Review Application was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to pursue their appellate remedy before the Hon'ble Division Bench. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed, with no cost awarded.
TaxTMI 