The case involves Phoenix Industries Limited challenging the rejection of their request by the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) to fulfill export obligations without submitting "Bills of Export" for supplies to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). Phoenix argued that all other necessary documents were provided and the supplies should be considered as valid exports. The High Court of Bombay considered the procedural aspects and existing precedents, ultimately supporting the petitioner’s argument that a rigid insistence on the "Bill of Export" in this context is unwarranted.

Background and Legal Context

Phoenix Industries Limited filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court to challenge the decisions of the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC). The dispute centered on whether the submission of "Bills of Export" is mandatory for fulfilling export obligations in cases of supplies made to units located in Special Economic Zones (SEZ). The petitioner argued that despite not filing the "Bill of Export," all other essential documents were provided, proving the export.

Facts of the Case

Phoenix Industries is engaged in manufacturing non-ferrous metal alloys. The company had received an Advance Authorisation (AA) to import duty-free materials for manufacturing goods intended for export to SEZ units. Due to an oversight, the required "Bill of Export" was not filed during the supply process. However, the company submitted alternative documents such as ARE-1 forms, duly assessed by relevant authorities. Despite these submissions, the PRC rejected their application for discharge of the export obligation.

Legal Proceedings and Judgment

Phoenix’s petition relied heavily on precedents, particularly the Larsen & Toubro Limited vs. Union of India case, where the court had ruled that procedural lapses such as not filing the "Bill of Export" can be condoned if there is sufficient evidence of export. The court noted that the DGFT had also recently relaxed the requirement for such submissions for supplies made before July 1, 2017. This policy change benefited Phoenix in part but left a few supplies unaddressed.

The court ruled in favor of Phoenix, directing the respondents to accept the alternative documentation as proof of export, considering it unjust to penalize the petitioner for a minor procedural oversight.

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms the principle that technicalities should not hinder the substantive rights of exporters, particularly when there is clear evidence of export. The case serves as a precedent for flexibility in the interpretation of export regulations, especially concerning SEZ supplies.