Calcutta High Court
Four Star International Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 April, 2016
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
OD-1
GA No. 746 of 2016
WP No. 162 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
FOUR STAR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date : 18th April, 2016.
Appearance:
Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Rabi Prasad Mookerjee, Adv.
The Court: Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the petitioner was not represented on February 25, 2016 when WP No. 162 of 2016 was dismissed for default. The order dated February 25, 2016 is recalled and WP No. 162 of 2016 is restored to the file.
The restoration application, GA No. 746 of 2016, is allowed as above, but without any order as to costs.
Since the Union of India is represented, the petition is taken up for immediate consideration by consent of the parties. 2
This matter is covered by a recent order of this Bench of April 7, 2016 in WP No. 289 of 2016 (M/s. Banarsi Das & Sons vs. Union of India).
By a notification of December 28, 2012, the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) announced an incentive scheme of duty credit scrip based on the enhanced export of goods of certain description in the last quarter of financial year 2012-13 over those exported during the corresponding period of the previous financial year.
The incentive announced by the notification of December 28, 2012 was sought to be modified by two separate notifications of September 25, 2013: the first removing raw cotton from the list of eligible goods; and, the second putting a cap on the quantum of incentive receivable. Such subsequent notifications were introduced when the exporters who had been induced by the notification of December 28, 2012 had already completed their export of the relevant goods in the last quarter of financial year 2012-13. In tune with a previous order of this Court of January 28, 2016 passed in similar circumstances, the order dated April 7, 2016 held that the lowering of the incentive, to which persons may already have become entitled, could not be made.
The petitioner herein stands on the same footing. The petitioner exported raw cotton of large quantities in the last quarter of financial year 2012-13. Prior to the notification of September 25, 2013, the petitioner 3 applied for the duty scrips to which the petitioner was entitled in terms of the notification of December 28, 2012. The petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the first notification of September 25, 2013 disqualified exporters of raw cotton from receiving any incentive under the notification of December 28, 2012 as modified by the second notification of September 25, 2013. The petitioner says that the petitioner suffered on both counts: that the quantum of incentive was reduced by the second notification of September 25, 2013 and the commodity that the petitioner exported for obtaining the incentive was removed from the list of eligible goods by the first notification of the same date. According to the petitioner, the first notification of September 25, 2013 removing raw cotton from the list of eligible goods was undone by a subsequent notification of January 23, 2014 whereupon the reduced incentive payable to the petitioner under the notification of December 28, 2012 as modified by the second notification of September 25, 2013 was made available.
The petitioner claims that the petitioner is entitled to the entire quantum of incentive in terms of the notification of December 28, 2012, irrespective of the modification thereof by the second notification of September 25, 2013.
In view of the grounds recorded in the order of M/s. Banarsi Das referred to above, the present petition, WP No.162 of 2016, is allowed by 4 setting aside the order impugned dated December 6, 2013 and by remanding the matter for fresh consideration before the DGFT who will consider the further entitlement of the petitioner after taking into account the benefit conferred subsequent to the impugned order upon the first notification of September 25, 2013 being annulled.
The exercise of making the quantum of incentive to which the petitioner is entitled available to the petitioner should be completed by the DGFT within six weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order on the basis of the original notification of December 28, 2012 and uninfluenced by any subsequent modification thereof.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc.