AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devan Ramachandran, J
The appellant, which is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, applied for Advance Licenses from the 2nd respondent - Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT); and it was admittedly acceded to, by offering them three such.
The dispute in this case revolves around one of the said Licenses; with the other two concededly having been honoured.
Apropos the License in question, it was issued on 31.03.2004, with an original validity of 18 months, namely until 30.09.2005. It is undisputed that an extension was applied for by the appellant, which was granted until 30.09.2006; but since they were unable to honour the export commitments, they made a further request for extension - through an application dated 29.11.2007; but to be rejected through an order dated 22.01.2008.
The appellants, thereupon, filed a review before the 2nd respondent - Director General of Foreign trade (DGFT); but, also to be rejected through the impugned order dated 14.05.2013.
Sri.C.K.Karunakaran – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that, when the delay in disposal of the review petition was solely attributable to the 2nd respondent, the demand for interest during the period from 29.02.2008 till 14.05.2013 is untenable; and that this ought to have been considered and appreciated by the learned Single Judge. He prayed that, hence, the impugned judgment be set aside.
Sri.Gireesh Kumar – learned Senior panel counsel for the 4th respondent, in response, argued that the above contention is wholly untenable and impermissible because, the time for the appellant to complete the export obligation has long expired, even going by the 1st extension granted on 30.09.2006. He pointed out that, the application for further extension was made by the appellant only on 29.11.2007, 14 months later; which was rejected within time, on 22.01.2008. He vehemently asserted that the 2nd respondent has correctly found that the appellant had not been able to comply with the export obligation for more than three and half years after the Advance License had been issued; and hence that no further time could be granted. He pointed out that this is exactly what the learned Single Judge has found; as also that the interest is statutory in nature, which cannot be waived; and prayed that this appeal be consequently, dismissed.
We find force in the afore submissions of Sri.Gireesh Kumar, for more reasons than one.
For the first, admittedly, the Advance License is dated 31.03.2004, with its original validity to have expired on 31.09.2005. The 3rd respondent - DDGFT allowed an extension until 30.09.2006, on the application of the appellant; but they still could not comply with their obligations citing financial crisis and “liquidity unavailability”. They, therefore, applied for a further extension before the DDGFT - but after having waited for more than 14 months after even the extension had expired, on 30.09.2006, through an application dated 29.11.2007, which was rejected through the order dated 22.01.2008.
When the afore facts are wholly without contest, then the sole surviving question is whether, the mere filing of a review against the order of the DDGFT before the DGFT, would affect the statutory obligation of the appellant to pay interest.
Pertinently, the Review Application was filed on 29.02.2008; but, by then, the extended period of the license had expired nearly One and half years earlier, on 30.09.2006. The impugned order of the DGFT finds that, since more than 8 years had elapsed, with the appellant having still not, honoured his obligation, any further extension would be untenable and merely dilatory.
It is relevant that we, are not called upon to consider whether the order of the DGFT is in error; but, only if the period between 29.02.2008 - being the date of review, until the date of the impugned order - namely 14.05.2013, will have to be excluded for the purpose of charge of interest.
As the learned Single Judge has rightly held, interest is mulcted under the statutory scheme and even this Court does not normally obtain jurisdiction to waive it, or to reduce its rigour. The only possibility for the appellant to seek any such as our exception, is to prove that there was something beyond their control, or not attributable to them, which caused the delay in honouring the export obligation.
However, in this case, the appellant clearly was at fault, in not complying, even in part, with the export obligation until 30.09.2006, which is nearly two and half years after the date of the License, namely 31.03.2004; and then, when one looks at it from the angle of this period itself was on account of an extention validly granted, a further one could not have been normally expected. However, the appellant applied for much, but to be met with rejection through the order of the 3rd respondent DDGFT dated 22.01.2008. It is against this, that the review was filed on 29.02.2008; and therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the said application was allegedly kept pending by the DGFT until 14.05.2013, it would inure no benefit to the appellant whatsoever, since unfortunately it is their own actions, which have brought the situation as now seen, against them. We therefore, obtain no cause to intervene; and consequently, this appeal is dismissed.