Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. In Pradip Polyfils Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 173 ELT 3 (Bom) a somewhat similar question arose for consideration. The petitioner had exported filter plates and accessories made with polypropylene under the DEPB Scheme through the Bombay coastal area at Bombay for which DEPB licences were issued by the DGFT Surat. The customs authorities rejected the claim for credit of duty on the grounds that the goods exported did not fall under Chapter 39 of ITC (HS) classification of export import item, which is a precondition for claiming credit under SI. No. 14, of Public Notice No. 6, dated April 15, 1998. It was not in dispute that the DEPB licences were issued against export of polypropylene filter plates and accessories as contained in the shipping bills, which was required to be forwarded to the customs for verification of the particular set out in the shipping bills and necessary endorsements. The verification of the customs authorities under Circular No. 15 of 1997 dated June 3, 1997 was restricted to the description, quantity, and FOB value of the export products set out in the shipping bills. The customs authorities did not allege that there was any discrepancy in the description, quantity and FOB value. Under the circumstances, the Bombay High Court held that when DEPB licence is issued, the petitioners are entitled to DEPB in respect of polypropylene filter plates and accessories. The customs authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim on the ground that the articles exported were not covered under Chapter 39 ITC (HS) classification. Whether an item falls under Chapter 39 of ITC classification or not is for the licensing authority to consider before issuing the licence. Even after issuance of the licence the licensing authority has powers to decide if the licenses were wrongly issued. The orders of the customs authorities were quashed and set aside.