IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the significance of adherence to the EMA scheme guidelines and the importance of proper certification in claiming benefits under the scheme.

JUDGMENT :

TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by AI Champdany Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and its functionary challenging an order dated 31st January, 2018 passed in a writ petition being W.P. 2319 (W) of 2016 refusing to interfere with the orders dated 8th July, 2015 and 19th /20th November, 2015 passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Textiles pursuant to the order dated 6th May, 2015 passed in a writ petition being W.P. 5365 (W) of 2010.

2. The appellants preferred the writ petition being W.P. 2319 (W) of 2016 stating inter-alia that the respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as UOI) with effect from 8th February, 1989 introduced the External Market Assistance Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘the EMA scheme’) with the basic object of boosting exports of jute goods from India. Under the EMA Scheme, market assistance is provided at a specified rate on export of specified jute products. The EMA scheme since its inception has got extension and has undergone modification from time to time and was valid till 31st March, 2007. By a notification dated 25th September, 1998, food grade jute products (FGJP) were brought under the purview of the EMA scheme and it was, inter-alia, specified that the exporters in order to claim the EMA scheme would have to submit pre-shipment certificates to the respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as NJB) along with diverse documents specified therein. Such pre-shipment certificates would have to be signed by duly constituted authority of respondent no. 3 (hereinafter referred to as IJIRA) and/or their licensee being the respondent no. 4 (hereinafter referred to as SGS) for the said purpose. On the basis of such EMA scheme the Company submitted its claim with the NJB and the goods which were manufactured and exported by the Company were inspected either by the SGS or by IJIRA and after such inspection of the products, payment was also received by the Company in respect of such claim but all on a sudden vide letter dated 12th December, 2007 issued by the Central Government to NJB it was inter-alia indicated that FGJP certificates issued by SGS do not conform to the procedure laid down in the EMA Scheme, therefore, the claim made on the basis of the certificate issued by SGS would not be entertained. Challenging the said notification, the appellants earlier preferred a writ petition being W.P. 5365 (W) of 2010. Upon contested hearing the said writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 6th May, 2015 observing inter-alia that the notification/order dated 12th December, 2007 has been arbitrarily, erroneously, whimsically, given with retrospective effect by the authority without any valid reason. By the said order the Secretary, Ministry of Textiles and his delegate were directed to consider the writ petitioners/appellants’ claim, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. As directed, an opportunity of hearing was granted and an order was passed on 8th July, 2015 rejecting the appellants’ claim. Pointing out the infirmities in the said order, the appellants submitted a representation dated 30th July, 2015 to review the earlier decision but such prayer was denied by an order dated 19th/20th November, 2015.

3. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 31st January, 2018 observing inter-alia that ‘in the situation, while the suit is pending for adjudication upon evidence of the parties, any observation or decision about the impugned report, as revisited, may cause prejudice to either of the parties. Therefore, refraining myself from entering into merits and keeping liberty of the parties in tact and keeping all points pertaining to the report of EMA claims dated 8th July, 2015, as was assailed in the writ petition, open for raising in the civil suit (supra), if so requires, the writ petition being held not maintainable, is disposed of without