Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.6 An Import-Export Code (IEC) number is issued by the DGFT under section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "Foreign Trade Act") for each of the importers-exporters, and such IEC number is always shown in the Authorisation and also in the export documents like shipping bill. On the basis of IEC number and also the Authorisation number in the export documents, the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) is issued by the DGFT authorities; and when such EODC is issued in respect of a particular Authorisation, the custom authorities who allowed duty free imports under such Authorisation discharge the bond furnished by the assessee, thereby discharging such C/SCA/14109/2018 JUDGMENT person from all the obligations. An IEC number is issued for each of the entities, and thus, a particular entity (be it an individual or a firm or a company) is allotted a separate IEC number by the DGFT authorities.

5.4 Reference was also made to section 7 of the Foreign Trade Act, which provides for "Importer-Exporter Code Number and Licence" and lays down that no person shall make any import or export except under an Importer-Exporter Code Number granted by the Director General or the officer authorized by the Director General in this behalf, in accordance with the procedure specified in this behalf by the Director C/SCA/14109/2018 JUDGMENT General. Referring to the impugned decision dated 6.2.2017 of the Policy Review Committee, it was submitted that the same refers to conduct and knowledge, and absence of any provision for extension of EOP and change in IEC. Reference was made to the written submissions made by the petitioner in the appeal under section 16 of the Foreign Trade Act, to point out that the petitioner had requested that suitable extension be granted in view of the Circular dated 16.11.2011 and as per paragraph 4.42 of the Handbook of Procedure, in which case the petitioner would be in a position to fulfill the export obligation even at this stage within a period of four months from the date of grant of such extension. The attention of the court was invited to the statement of the total exports on yearly basis made by M/s Lubi Industries LLP from 2013-2017 (page 49), to submit that the petitioner could have easily fulfilled the export obligations within the said time.

6.14 In conclusion, it was submitted that the applications made by the petitioner have rightly been rejected and that the petition being devoid of merits, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

7. In rejoinder, Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that despite the petitioner having made applications for substitution of IEC and the name of the new company in the existing Authorisations, no action was taken to substitute the IEC. It was submitted that the circular is only procedural, and that when liabilities get transferred, rights of obligations also get transferred. It was submitted that whether the export obligation period has expired or not is not relevant C/SCA/14109/2018 JUDGMENT and that if there is any liability, the importer-exporter code number has to be changed. It was submitted that the expression "transferable" has not been defined in the policy. Moreover, when merger takes place, there is no transfer. Reference was made to sections 10 to 14 of the Foreign Trade Act which fall under Chapter IV under the heading "search, seizure, penalty and confiscation" to submit that no action has been taken thereunder till date. It was submitted that the right to get the name substituted is a vested right as the right of the merged party gets transferred to the transferee. It was submitted that if the petitioner were to get relief of transfer of IEC number, it should be granted reasonable time for exporting the goods. Reference was made to the contents of the Foreign Trade Policy to point out that paragraph 4.22 thereof provides for export obligations to be fulfilled within thirty six months. Para 4.22.1 thereof provides for automatic extension which does not require an application to be made. Para 4.22.2 relates to exports in anticipation of extension and Para 4.23 pertains to revalidation of authorisation. Reference was made to the definition of "revalidation" in Black's Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition. It was submitted that Para 4.23 does not say that the application has to be made before the expiry of the export obligation period.