LexGENERAL INSTRUMENTS COMPANY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r [2008] 12 S.C.R. 544 A GENERAL INSTRUMENTS COMPANY ~- v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5222 of 2008) B AUGUST 25, 2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] ' -f Export-Import.- Cash Compensatory Support (CCS) - Claim of - Global tender floated by Government Undertaking c - Import ofraw material by supplier Firm - Application for Im- port licence at concessional rate of duty - However, issuance of Special Imprest Licence (SIL) subject to execution of bond - Thereafter, forfeiture order against Firm as it failed to fulfil export obligation - Directions to remit Bond amount and pay D customs duty - Subsequently, denial of CCS by Authorities - Custom Authorities seeking recovery of custom duty - Sev- era/ rounds of litigation - Representation by Firm seeking con- ~· version of SIL into licence for imports, rejected - Order of High Court that forfeiture order not called for; that Licensing Authori- """ E ties erred in issuing SIL, thus Bond not enforceable; and that the Authorities would convert SIL into licence for imports, but rejected claim of CCS - On appeal, held: During the course of hearing, Authorities allowed substantial claim for CCS, how- ever, rejected the balance claim for want of documentary evl- dence - Since SIL was converted into Project Import Licence, F claim for balance CCS cannot be granted - However, since the period of debarment was reduced and High Court. held _._ that forfeiture order was not called for, there was no justifiable reason for not releasing CCS claim - Respondents retained the CCS amount due to Firm . without authority of law and is G liable for it- Thus, respondents directed to release CCS claim with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of impugned judgment till )-~ date of actual payment. RCF-a Government of India Undertaking floated a H 544 GENERAL INSTRUMENTS COMPANY v. UNION 545 OF INDIA & ORS. y'" global tender for supply of capital goods for its project. A Appellant-partnership firm submitted its quotation for supply of cables. RCF accepted the tender and agreed to purchase cables worth Rs. 17,49,000/- from the appellant by a purchase order. Appellant applied to Joint Chief Con- troller of Imports & Exports for import licence with duty B I exemption entitlement certificate etc. for import of raw "" materials. Thereafter, appellant obtained the essentiality certificate from RCF and forwarded it to JCCI. Though the project was fully financed by the Government of India, --t JCCI issued a Special Imprest Licence (SIL) to the appel- c lant under AM 84 policy, permitting the appellant to im- port listed raw materials for Rs.5,78,300/-without payment of customs duty, subject to certain conditions. In pursu- ance thereof, Bond was executed. Appellant imported raw materials and utilised them in the manufacture of result- D ant products, valued at Rs.17,59,382/-; supplied to RCF against the export obligation of Rs.17,49,000/-. Thereat- ~ ter, appellant approached RCF for requisite endorsement on Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate. RCF made the requisite endorsement on the DEEC book that the appel- E ~ lant had supplied goods valued at Rs.17,59,382/- from 27 .07 .1983 to 10.05.1984. Meanwhile, JCCI issued show cause notice to appellant calling them to enforce Bond for Rs.12,14,623/- furnished by them as they violated the Licence and the Bond. The Controller of Imports and Ex- ports held that the appellant failed to fulfil the export obli- F ...... gation as also to furnish the prescribed documents in time. It directed the appellant to remit the Bond amount of Rs.12, 14,623/-; to surrender the valid R.E.P. licence remain- ing unutilised and to pay customs duty with interest @ 18% p.a. Consequent to the forfeiture order, Controller of G ~ ,( Imports & Exports, denied cash assistance to the appel .. ' lant. Appellant filed appeal against the forfeiture order which was rejected. Appellant then filed second appeal .. H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. A During the pendency, the Customs Authorities sought recovery of customs duty amounting ~o Rs.3,71,614.82 from the appellant in respect of raw materials imported and cleared without payment of duty under SIL. Appel- lant filed writ petition which was disposed of as the ap- 8 pellant volunteered to deposit the customs duty de- I manded. Thereafter, by order dated 21.02.03, the second -f appeal was also dismissed. The licensing authority initi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.