Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Jindal Poly Films Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Director General of Foreign Trade Prc Cell and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7806 of 2014; Civil Miscellaneous No. 18331 of 2014
Decided on : 22-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Sandeep Sethi, Adv., Suruchi Aggarwal, Adv., Kirtiman Singh, Adv.
The entitlement to clubbing of licenses under the Foreign Trade Policy and the Handbook of Procedures is determined by the expiration of the export obligation period and the maximum period for which extension could have been granted.
Headnote:
Clubbing of Licenses - Foreign Trade Policy - Handbook of Procedures (HoPv1) - Paragraph 4.20, 4.20.3, 4.20.4 - The court discussed the entitlement of the petitioner to clubbing of licenses under the Foreign Trade Policy and the Handbook of Procedures. It highlighted the provisions of paragraph 4.20, 4.20.3, and 4.20.4 of the HoPv1, emphasizing that clubbing is not permitted if exports are made beyond the export obligation extension period of an earlier authorization. The court found that the facility of clubbing of the licenses in question was unavailable to the petitioner due to the expiration of the export obligation period and the maximum period for which extension could have been granted. The court upheld the decision of the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) in rejecting the petitioner's application for clubbing of advance licenses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public company engaged in manufacturing and exporting polyester and polypropylene film, sought clubbing of advance authorizations to fulfill export obligations. The DGFT rejected the petitioner's request, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to clubbing of licenses under the Foreign Trade Policy and the Handbook of Procedures due to the expiration of the export obligation period and the maximum period for which extension could have been granted. The court upheld the decision of the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) in rejecting the petitioner's application for clubbing of advance licenses.
Issues: The principal controversy involved whether the petitioner was entitled to clubbing of its three licenses in question under the Foreign Trade Policy and the Handbook of Procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of paragraph 4.20, 4.20.3, and 4.20.4 of the HoPv1, which govern the facility of clubbing of licenses under the Foreign Trade Policy. The court emphasized that clubbing is not permitted if exports are made beyond the export obligation extension period of an earlier authorization.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no interference with the impugned order dated 14.10.2014 was warranted.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 14.10.2014 passed by respondent no.3 (Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade) under Rule 7.1(k) of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 declaring the petitioner to be a defaulter and placing the petitioner under the “Denied Entry List”. The import of the said order is that all pending/future applications filed by the petitioner for benefits/authorizations from the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 and the procedures therein, would be refused. In addition, the petitioner also impugns orders dated 25.11.2011 (communicating the decision of 01.11.2011); 01.10.2012 and 30.04.2013 passed by the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) of DGFT, wherein the petitioner’s request for extension of the period of discharging export obligation under advance authorization No. 510136637 dated 27.08.2004 and for clubbing of the said license with advance license No. 0510096846 dated 22.07.2003 and advance license No. 0510266545 dated 21.06.2010 were denied.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed to discharge his export obligation in respect of advance authorization (No. 050136637) dated 22.08.2004. In this regard, a show cause notice dated 04.07.2011 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner did not respond to the said show cause notice, however, the petitioner made an application seeking extension of the period for discharging the export obligation and also sought clubbing of the advance license with two other licenses - one dated 22.07.2003 and the other dated 21.06.2010. The petitioner claimed that it had exported 845 MT of excess quantity under the license dated 22.07.2003 and had exported 4262 MT of polyester film against the advance license dated 21.06.2010 without making any imports. The petitioner requested that if the aforesaid two licenses (License dated 22.07.2003 and 21.06.2010) were clubbed, the petitioner’s export obligation would stands discharged.
3. The petitioner claims that it is entitled for clubbing of licenses in terms of paragraph 4.20 of the Handbook of Procedures (Volume-1) (hereafter “HoPv1”) for the period 2009-14 (amended up to 23.08.2010), as applicable on 29.08.2011, being the date of the petitioner’s application for clubbing of licenses. The respondents dispute the above and contend that since the exports were effected beyond the period of export obligation of the earlier authorization (license dated 22.08.2004), the facility of clubbing as provided under paragraph 4.20 of the HoPv1 is not available of the petitioner.
4. In view of the above, the principal controversy involved in the present petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to clubbing of the aforementioned licenses in terms of the Handbook of Procedures under the Foreign Trade Policy. The petitioner also assailed the impugned order dated 14.10.2014 on the ground that it has been passed on the basis that no documents were available on record. The petitioner’s claim that the same is palpably erroneous since all relevant documents had been produced by the petitioner and were otherwise on the record of the respondents (DGFT).
5. Briefly stated, the aforementioned controversy arises in the following context:-
5.1 The petitioner is a public company and is, inter alia, engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting polyester Film (PET Film) and Bi-axially and Polypropylene Film (BOPET Film). The petitioner claims to be one of the leading exporters of PET Film/BOPP and has also been awarded as a Trading House status. Respondent nos.1 to 4 are officials from the Office of Director General of Foreign Trade (hereafter collectively and severally referred to as “DGFT”). During the course of the business, the petitioner had applied for advance authorizations. The controversy rel
