AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. On 7th June, 2017 it received a purchase order from a foreign entity namely M/s. Dedienne Aerospace, France for supply of certain goods. The total consideration in terms of the purchase order was EUR 2,655,372.20. The goods which were to be supplied to Dedienne Aerospace were transferred by the Petitioner to M/s Siddhartha Logistics Co. Pvt. Ltd., a logistics company located in Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor Distt., Andhra Pradesh for exporting the same Dedienne Aerospace. On 19th July, 2018 a shipping bill was raised, reflecting the Petitioner as the "Exporter" and the Dedienne Aerospace as the "Client". The said bill also reflected that M/s. Siddhartha Logistics was accepting the consignment on behalf the Dedienne Aerospace. All the relevant documents including the purchase order, shipping bill cargo receipt and the invoices have been placed on record. 4. The total amount, which was to be received by the Petitioner, has been received by way of foreign remittance. The total realization of the consideration amount in foreign exchange has also been confirmed by the certificates of foreign inward remittance issued by HDFC Bank on 12th December, 2017, 19th April, 2018, 14th Septembe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... July, 2021 the Petitioner filed a reply to the impugned show cause notice. Thereafter, a communication dated 11th August, 2021 was sent to the Respondent No.4 - Director General of Foreign Trade, wherein the Petitioner cited the judgment of Jindal Drugs (supra) and sought a policy clarification. The Respondent No. 4 asked the Petitioner to approach the Respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the Petitioner sent communication dated 10th September 2021 to the Respondent No. 2 reiterating that there had been no misrepresentation or mis-direction by the Petitioner. The Petitioner also brought to the notice of the Respondent No 2 the judgment of Jindal Drugs (supra). Thereafter the Petitioner was, afforded a personal hearing on 17th September, 2021. The Petitioner also filed W.P.(C) 10603/2021 challenging the impugned show cause notice. 11. The Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 17th September, 2021 cancelling the MEIS scrip previously issued to the Petitioner, imposing a penalty of INR 1,00,000/-, directing the Petitioner to pay the duty credit amount, and placing the name of the Petitioner and its directors on the Denied Entity List (DEL), depriving them of all fiscal benefit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., however, contends that these factual aspects cannot be considered in the writ proceedings and therefore, prays that the petitioner, if aggrieved, be directed to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. 6. He, however, assures the Court that in case the petitioner were to file an appeal assailing the impugned order, the respondents will neither take any coercive action in furtherance of the impugned order dated 17.09.2021, nor place the petitioner in the 'Denied Entity List' till the appeal is disposed of on merits. 7. In the light of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent by which they will remain bound, the writ petition is disposed of by granting two weeks' time to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal assailing the impugned order dated 17.09.2021. In case such an appeal is filed within the time so granted, the respondents will deal with the same expeditiously by passing a reasoned and speaking order after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as per the prescribed procedure. 8. It is further directed that, in case, an adverse order is passed against the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of FTP; (iii) Exports through trans-shipment, meaning thereby exports that are originating in third country but trans-shipped through India; (iv) Deemed Exports; (v) SEZ/ EOU /EHTP/ BTP /FTWZ products exported through DTA units; (vi) Export products which are subject to Minimum export price or export duty. (vii) Exports made by units in FTWZ. 17. The above clauses of the MEIS came upon consideration before the Hon'ble Madras High Court, in Jindal Drugs (supra) wherein the Petitioner - Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. was involved in export to Ireland. In the said transaction, DHL logistics in Chennai was used as logistics support. In the context of the said facts, the ld. Single Judge of the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide judgement dated 30th July, 2021 observed as under: "17. The question of eligibility to the Scheme is fundamental to the prayer sought by the petitioner. Para 3.06 of the Scheme sets out seven categories of transactions/entities that would be ineligible for the benefits of MEIS. I have extracted the same at pargraph 5 of this order and do not repeat it again for the sake of brevity. 18. The first is, supplies ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat of a warehouse and nothing more. The concept of 'ship to' and 'bill to', as used in this case, has been recognised under the GST regime, as commercial compulsions dictate, that transactions are to be structured in the most economical and least cumbersome manner in terms of time, procedure and expense involved. 24. Dr.Babu, raises an objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition stating that the impugned order is appealable. I, however, find no statutory redress provided as against the impugned order though there is one provided as against an order cancelling the scrips under the FTDR Act had such order been passed. This submission is thus rejected. 25. The interpretation put forth by the petitioner is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and this Writ Petition allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 26. The scrips are for the months of May, October and June, 2018 with a validity of two years expiring on 27.05.2020, 09.10.2020 and 12.06.2020. These Writ Petitions have been filed on 19.06.2019 when the scrips were alive and current. Thus, in order to effectuate the relief granted now, there is a consequential direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unit (Siddhartha Logistics Co. Pvt. Ltd.) that it held the goods merely in trust for the Overseas Buyer and that it has neither claimed nor been granted benefit in regard to the export goods which were subsequently shipped to Taiwan. In the Jindal Drugs case, though the facts are similar to the case in hand, the Madras High Court therein looked into the principal transaction between the parties to ascertain the role of the parties, it confirmed receipt of foreign exchange from Ireland and the BRC evidencing this position, it referred to the supporting documentation pertaining to onward shipment by the FTWZ unit therein to the location of choice of the overseas buyer and then concluded that the FTWZ unit therein merely offered a facility of warehousing to the Petitioner therein to facilitate the export. None of the above issues have been pleaded, and effectively proved by the Petitioner, save and except one shipping bill which does not evidence the aforesaid position in the case of the Petitioner." 19. In the present case, the decisions of Jindal Drugs (supra) and M/s Ashwini Ashish Dighe (supra) would be clearly applicable. The company i.e. M/s Siddhartha Logistics is merely a ....