Delhi High Court denies the Benefit Under Duty-Free Credit Entitlement Scheme (DFCE) to the Petitioner on grounds of Ineligibility

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

In M/S Kanak Exports vs. Union of India and Ors., M/s Adani Export Ltd. opposed the order issued by Respondent No.3 dated 28.12.2017. The order held that the Petitioner was ineligible under the DFCE to get any benefit. 

The Duty-Free Credit Entitlement Scheme (DFCE) is given to a merchant-exporter or manufacturer-exporter. It helps in importing products used in the manufacturing of goods. This Scheme is also very helpful as one doesn’t have to pay Basic Customs Duty and Additional Special Duty. 

Facts of the Case

The Government of India notified Policy 2002-2007 on Export-Import (EXIM) as under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade Act (Development and Regulation), 1992. On 28.01.2004, Notification No.28 amended Paragraph 3.7.2.1 of Chapter III of the EXIM Act.

Petition in the High Court of Gujarat and Bombay 

  • Adani Exports Ltd had filed a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court and the High Court of Bombay. The petition opposed, inter alia, the validity of the notification as well as the Public Notice No.40. Both the High Courts in separate judgments on 23.07.2004 and 04.07.2005, allowed the said Writ Petition in part. 
  • The Gujarat High Court held that the notification was to stop the change of export orders from one Company to another belonging to the same business. Thus, it was of a clarifying nature. It purposed to show the increased export success of the other company. The Bombay High Court also held the same. But, set aside the Public Notice dated 28.01.2004 as being ultra vires. 

Before the Supreme Court

  • The Parties challenged the judgments before the Supreme Court using special leave petitions. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal. The Court held the targets achieved were by fraudulent means. Thus, any vested right is not accumulated in favour of these exporters.

Review Petition in the Supreme Court

  • Feeling aggrieved from the above decision, the complainant requested a Review Petition (Civil). But, the Supreme Court denied the same. 
  • The Petitioner thereafter filed a revised application before the Respondent No.3. Contending that, out of the total exports of Rs.1070.35 crores made by them between 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004, exports of Rs. 355.69 crores had become ineligible.
  • The said had become ineligible as mentioned above, in view of the exclusion set out in Notification dated 28.01.2004. This left the eligible exports at Rs.714.66 crores entitled to the benefit of the DFCE Scheme. 

The Respondent no.3 also rejected the submission by its Impugned Order/Letter. This was rejected on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision and observation. The Respondent found the Petitioner not liable for any benefit under the DFCE Scheme. 

Hence, they were not entitled to a claim.

The present petition is before The Delhi High Court.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Impugned Order should be set aside. 

The Supreme Court only considered the validity of the Writ Petition (Civil) and not the eligibility of the petitioner for any benefit under the DFCE.

Further, the allegations of fraud need to be with the supporting material. Therefore, mere presumptions and surmises cannot be the basis. In the present case, neither in the Impugned Order nor the counter affidavit referred to any investigation against the petitioner. He further submits, that to deny the Petitioner the benefit of the scheme would be discriminatory.

Contentions of the Respondent

The counsel submitted that the Supreme Court had denied the relief. It is thus, not available to the petitioner. The petitioner, in fact, seeks to re-agitate the relief denied to it by the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The judgment by the SC was considered, where the letter addressed by the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Central Board of Excise and Customs, to the DGFT was seen into. And also various other contemporaneous letters/Circulars/Minutes of Meeting. They did so to find a lead up to the issuance of the Notifications dated 21.04.2004 and 23.04.2004. They also took note of the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India. This affidavit gave details of the modus operandi used by the exporters to inflate their exports to claim the benefit of the DFCE Scheme.

The Supreme found that both these firms had misused the provisions of the Scheme. For such reason, the Court set aside the direction of the Bombay High Court that granted relief to the petitioner under the said Scheme.

Held

The Petitioner should not try to re-agitate eligibility in the form of a new petition. As the SC judgment makes them ineligible for the same. And, merely because the Respondents have granted some relief to M/s Adani Export Ltd or have not made any recoveries from it, it cannot entitle the petitioner, by itself, to claim benefit under the DFCE Scheme.

Thus, The petition stands dismissed. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -