Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12)/2009-2014 dated 28th December 20121 ("the 2012 Exhibit "B", pp. 49-54 to WP No. 2122 of 2015 6 of 27 OSWP1750-15+3-JWS STEEL-WELSPUN.DOC Notification"). This Notification inserted paragraph 3.14.4 in the Foreign Trade Policy ("FTP") 2009-2014. This Notification, while prescribing a number of restrictions, all of which the Petitioners accept, including a limitation as to the eligibility period or time, allowed a duty credit of 2% on the incremental growth in export achieved by those who held an Import Export Code ("IEC") for the quarter in question. If the prescribed criteria were met, the IEC holder was entitled to a duty credit scrip at this rate. It is the case of the Petitioners that the 2012 Notification did not in and of itself prescribe any cap or ceiling limit on the quantum of the duty credit scrip. It only prescribed a percentage of the incremental growth and contained various other qualifying restrictions.

5. Subsequently, by Notification No. 44(RE-2013)/2009-2014 dated 25th September 2013,2 ("the 2013 Notification"), according to the Petitioners, two paragraphs were added to the 2012 Notification. The first of these said that the benefit of the IEIS would be 25% growth or incremental growth of Rs. 10 crores, whichever was less. The second paragraph of the 2013 Notification, however, said in terms that 'claims in excess of this value would be subject to greater scrutiny by the Regional Authority' ("RA"). According to the Petitioners, therefore, correctly read, the 2013 Notification did not in fact prescribe a limit or a cap at all. It was only by virtue of a Clarification dated 23rd September 2014 dated 23rd September 20143 ("the 2014 Clarification") that the Respondents purported, and in the Petitioners' submission unlawfully, to impose a complete and overall cap on the value of the Exhibit "F", p. 61 to WP No. 2122 of 2015 Exhibit "S", p. 91-92 to WP No. 2122 of 2015 7 of 27 OSWP1750-15+3-JWS STEEL-WELSPUN.DOC duty credit scrip irrespective of the actual incremental growth in exports for the period in question.

Entitlement (b) An IEC holder would be entitled for a duty credit scrip @ 2% on the incremental growth (achieved by the IEC holder) during the period 01.01.2013 to 31.3.2013 compared to the period from 01.01.2012 to 31.3.2012 on the FOB value of exports. Incremental growth shall be in respect of each exporter (IEC holder) without any scope for combining the exports for Group Company.

(ii) Claims in excess of this value will be subjected to greater scrutiny by Regional Authority."

14. Mr. Nankani's submission is that he has no quarrel with this Notification as it stands, because on the face of it it does not, read as a whole, place any cap on the value of the scrip. Sub-clause (i) does say that the benefit is limited to 25% growth or incremental growth of Rs. 10 crores in value, i.e., that the credit scrip will be only 2% of the 25% of the growth or 2% of the incremental growth of Rs. 10 crores whichever is less, i.e., a maximum of Rs. 20 lakhs. At the same time, however, clause (ii) clearly contemplates claims larger than Rs. 20 lakhs but only says that these will be subject to greater scrutiny by the Regional Authority. This, according to Mr. Nankani, is completely sound, because where a large incremental export is claimed and a very large credit is claimed on that basis, it is of course necessary for the Revenue to exercise greater caution and care. But the same degree of care, caution and scrutiny may not necessarily be required for each and every single application. Those that are more modest in their claims might require a far less fine- grained an examination than large claims. Indeed, says Mr. Nankani, had the Respondents accepted this and proceeded accordingly, none of the Petitioners would have had any quarrel. They would have subjected themselves quite rightly to the rigours of any additional scrutiny that the Regional Authority may have wanted.