Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently provided clarity on the contentious issue of Promotion Rights of Government Employee. In a significant ruling, the Court emphasized that government employees do not have an intrinsic right to promotion. This article delves into the Court’s observations, the underlying principles, and the historical context of promotion policies in India, with a focus on the case of Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Promotion Rights of Government Employee 

Context and Case Details

On May 17, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the recommendations of the Gujarat High Court for promoting Senior Civil Judges to the 65% promotion quota of District Judges based on the merit-cum-seniority principle. The petitioners challenged the Select List dated March 10, 2023, claiming it violated Article 14 of the Constitution and Rule 5 of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005.

Key Observations: Government Employees Promotion Rights Clarification

1. No Intrinsic Right to Promotion: The Court reiterated that government employees cannot claim promotion as a matter of right because the Constitution does not prescribe criteria for promotions. The Court stated, “In India, no government servant can claim promotion as their right because the Constitution does not prescribe criteria for filling seats in promotional posts.”

2. Legislative and Executive Domain: The policy of promotions falls within the domain of the legislature or executive, with limited scope for judicial review. Courts can intervene only if the promotion policy violates the principle of equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution. The Court observed, “The Legislature or the executive may decide the method for filling vacancies to promotional posts based on the nature of employment and the functions that the candidate will be expected to discharge.”
3. Merit-Cum-Seniority Principle: The Court upheld the merit-cum-seniority principle for promotions, acknowledging that such policies are essential for selecting the best candidates for higher responsibilities. “The courts cannot sit in review to decide whether the policy adopted for promotion is suited to select the ‘best candidates’, unless on the limited ground where it violates the principle of equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution,” the judgment noted.

Recommendations for Improvement

The Supreme Court suggested that the Gujarat High Court could amend its Rules to incorporate a more detailed suitability test, similar to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. This includes adding a Viva Voce component, increasing the passing thresholds, and considering the quality of judgments from the past two years instead of one.

Historical Context of Promotion Policies  

Colonial Era

During the British Raj, the East India Company (EIC) promoted officials based on seniority, a practice officially recognized in the Charter Act of 1793. This method continued until the Indian Civil Service Act (ICS) of 1861 introduced promotions based on both seniority and merit, integrity, competence, and ability.

Post-Independence

After independence, the First Pay Commission in 1947 recommended a mix of direct recruitment and promotions, with seniority for roles requiring office experience and merit for higher positions. Subsequent commissions in 1959 and 1969 supported merit-based promotions alongside seniority.

Principle of Seniority

The principle of seniority was seen as a reflection of loyalty and a means to reduce favoritism. It was believed that long-serving employees demonstrated loyalty to the organization and deserved fair treatment in promotions. The Court noted, “The principle of seniority as a parameter of selection for promotion was found to be derived from the belief that competence is related to experience and that it limits the scope of discretion and favouritism.”

Judicial Perspective on Promotion Policies of Government Employee

Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta Case

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta case underscores that the government or the legislature can determine promotion criteria based on the nature of employment and job functions. The Court can only intervene if the promotion policy violates Article 16’s principle of equal opportunity.

Judicial Review Limitations

The Court highlighted that judicial review of promotion policies is limited. Courts cannot decide if the policy is suited to select the best candidates unless it contravenes the equality principle. This reinforces the idea that promotion policies should primarily be crafted and implemented by the legislative or executive branches.

Conclusion: Upholding Employee Promotion Rights

The Supreme Court’s ruling provides clarity on Government Employee Promotion Rights, emphasizing that such promotions are not a constitutional right but a policy matter for the legislature and executive. By upholding the merit-cum-seniority principle and suggesting improvements to the suitability test, the Court aims to ensure a fair and efficient promotion process that aligns with the principles of merit and equity.

This Supreme Court decision on Promotion Policy marks a significant step in delineating the boundaries of judicial intervention in promotion policies, ensuring that promotions are conducted in a manner that respects both the merit of candidates and the principles of equal opportunity.

The post Deciphering Government Employee Promotion Rights: A Supreme Court Insight appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Customs House Agents (CHA) play an essential role in facilitating the smooth clearance of goods through the customs process in India. In this article, we will discuss the role of a Customs House Agent and the prevailing Indian laws that govern their operations.

Who is a Customs House Agent?

A Customs House Agent is a person or an organization authorized by the Indian Customs Department to act as a representative of an importer or exporter in customs-related matters. The role of a CHA is to facilitate the clearance of goods through customs by completing various formalities, documentation, and other legal procedures required by the Customs Department. A CHA acts as a liaison between the importer/exporter and the Customs Department and assists in complying with the legal requirements for customs clearance.

The Customs House Agent Regulations, 2018 defines the CHA under Section 2 (d) as follows:

“Customs Broker ” means a person licensed under these regulations to act as an agent on behalf of the importer or an exporter for purposes of transaction of any business relating to the entry or departure of conveyances or the import or export of goods at any Customs Station including audit” 

Registration of Customs House Agent

The Customs House Agent Regulations, 2018, govern the registration of CHAs in India. As per the regulations, any person who wants to act as a Customs House Agent must obtain a license from the Customs Department. The license is valid for five years and can be renewed thereafter. The applicant has to provide various details, including their financial standing, previous experience, and a security deposit, to obtain the license.

Roles and responsibilities of a Customs House Agent

The primary responsibility of a CHA is to ensure that the goods are cleared through customs without any delays or hassles. A CHA performs the following tasks:

1. Documentation: A CHA is responsible for preparing and submitting all the necessary documents required for customs clearance, such as bills of entry, shipping bills, and other related documents.
2. Liaising with customs officials: A CHA acts as a liaison between the importer/exporter and the customs officials. They communicate with customs officials to ensure that all formalities are completed correctly.
3. Payment of duty: A CHA is responsible for the payment of import/export duty on behalf of the importer/exporter. They also ensure that all taxes and levies are correctly calculated and paid.
4. Examination of goods: A CHA is responsible for arranging the examination of the goods by customs officials and ensuring that the examination is carried out efficiently.
5. Transport of goods: A CHA arranges for the transport of goods from the customs warehouse to the importer/exporter’s premises.

That Section 146 of the Customs Act 1962 clearly mandates the compulsory license for doing any action or acting as a Customs House Agent which is as follows:

146. Customs house agents to be licensed.—
     1. No person shall carry on business as an agent relating to the entry or departure of a conveyance or the import or export of goods at any customs station unless such person holds a licence granted in this behalf in accordance with the regulations.2. The Board may make regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section and, in particular, such regulation may provide for—

     a.the authority by which a licence may be granted under this section and the period of validity of any such licence;

     b.the form of the licence and the fee payable therefor;

     c.the qualifications of persons who may apply for a licence and the qualifications of persons to be employed by a licensee to assist him in his work as an agent;

     d.the restrictions and conditions (including the furnishing of security by the licensee) subject to which a licence may be granted;

     e.the circumstances in which a licence may be suspended or revoked; and

     f. the appeals, if any, against an order of suspension or revocation of a licence, and the period within which such appeals shall be filed.

That the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 is passed vide Notification No. 41/2018-Customs (N.T.) dated 14th May, 2018 amended by Notification No. 08/2019-Customs (N.T.) dated 06.02.2019 and in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in supersession of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, published vide number G.S.R. 395 (E), dated the 21st June, 2013, except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has enacted the same to curb the menace.

That Regulation 3 of the  Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, clearly mandates as follows: 

3. Customs Brokers to be licensed.—

No person shall carry on business as a Customs Broker relating to the entry or departure of a conveyance or the import or export of goods including work relating to audit at any Customs Station unless such person holds a license granted under these regulations:  Provided that no license under these regulations shall be required by-

a. an importer or exporter transacting any business at a Customs Station solely on his own account;

b. any employee of any person or a firm transacting business generally on behalf of such person or firm, and holding an identity card or a temporary pass issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; and

c. an agent employed for one or more vessels or aircrafts in order solely to enter or clear such vessels or aircrafts for work incidental to his employment as such agent.  

It is also pertinent to note that Regulation 10 of the  Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, clearly mentions the duties and obligations of Customs Brokers which are as follows:

47. Obligations of Customs Broker.—

A  Customs Broker shall — 

a. obtain an authorisation from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorisation whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;

b. transact business in the Customs Station either personally or through an authorized employee duly approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;

c. not represent a client in any matter to which the Customs Broker, as a former employee of the Central Board of Indirect taxes and Customs gave personal consideration, or as to the facts of which he gained knowledge, while in Government service;

d. advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;

e. exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage;

f. not withhold information contained in any order, instruction or public notice relating to clearance of cargo or baggage issued by the Customs authorities, as the case may be, from a client who is entitled to such information;

g. promptly pay over to the Government, when due, sums received for payment of any duty, tax or other debt or obligations owing to the Government and promptly account to his client for funds received for him from the Government or received from him in excess of Governmental or other charges payable in respect of cargo or baggage on behalf of the client;

h. not procure or attempt to procure directly or indirectly, information from the Government records or other Government sources of any kind to which access is not granted by the proper officer;

i. not attempt to influence the conduct of any official of the Customs Station in any matter pending before such official or his subordinates by the use of threat, false accusation, duress or the offer of any special inducement or promise of advantage or by the bestowing of any gift or favour or other thing of value;

j. not refuse access to, conceal, remove or destroy the whole or any part of any book, paper or other record, relating to his transactions as a Customs Broker which is sought or may be sought by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;

k. maintain up to date records such as bill of entry, shipping bill, transhipment application, etc., all correspondence, other papers relating to his business as Customs Broker and accounts including financial transactions in an orderly and itemised manner as may be specified by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;

l. immediately report the loss of license granted to him to the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;

m. discharge his duties as a Customs Broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay;

n. verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN),identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information;

o. inform any change of postal address, telephone number, e-mail etc. to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, of all Customs Stations including the concerned Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of the Commissionerate who has granted the license immediately within two days;

p. maintain all records and accounts that are required to be maintained under these regulations and preserve for at least five years and all such records and accounts shall be made available at any time for the inspection of officers authorised for this purpose; and

q. co-operate with the Customs authorities and shall join investigations promptly in the event of an inquiry against them or their employees.

That Regulation 14 of the  Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, clearly mentions the penalties which are as follows:

14.Revocation of license or imposition of penalty—

The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs may, subject to the provisions of regulation 17, revoke the license of a Customs Broker and order for forfeiture of part or whole of security, on any of the following grounds, namely:—

a. failure to comply with any of the conditions of the bond executed by him under regulation 8;

b. failure to comply with any of the provisions of these regulations, within his jurisdiction or anywhere else;

c. commits any misconduct, whether within his jurisdiction or anywhere else which in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs renders him unfit to transact any business in the Customs Station;

d. adjudicated as an insolvent;

e. of unsound mind; and

f. convicted by a competent court for an offense involving moral turpitude or otherwise.

That in Noble Agency v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2002 (142) E.L.T. 84 (Tri. – Mumbai) wherein a Division Bench of the CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai has observed as follows: 

“The CHA occupies a very important position in the Custom House. The Customs procedures are complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs. The importer would find it impossible to clear his goods through these agencies without wasting valuable energy and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations lists out obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the punishment listed in the Regulations.”

That in V. Prabhakaran Vs CC Chennai – 2019 (365) ELT 877 (Mad.) Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that misuse of CHA license by lending it to unscrupulous persons for facilitating smuggling activities has to be viewed seriously. The penalty imposed in that case was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court, which is as follows: 

47. Here in the case on hand because of the attitude on the part of the appellant in lending his CHA license to a third party for usage without knowing the actual importer and the goods to be imported, is a serious issue and for the said purpose, since the appellant was admittedly get only Rs.1,000/- for each consignment, the appellant has not only misused the CHA license but also very recklessly and carelessly lend it to some unscrupulous perons for facilitating smuggling activities and therefore such act on the part of the appellant shall be viewed seriously.

That in R.S. Arunachalam Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) was pleased to hold that CHA liable for a penalty for allowing misuse of license by lending it to unscrupulous persons and the same has happened in the present case, and it was held as follows: 

19. The licence issued to the Customs House Agent under conditions not to commit any grave offence. If action under the Regulations not sufficient for the grave offence, the Customs House Agent is liable also to be proceeded under the Customs Act. There is no legal impediment to proceed against the Customs House Agent under the Customs Act besides action under the Regulations.”

22. After appreciating the facts and evidence placed before me, I am of the view that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Rama Thenna Thayalan (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. I do not find any merit in the appeals of the appellant. The impugned orders do not call for interference. The same are upheld. The appeals are dismissed.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, Customs House Agents (CHA) are important intermediaries in the smooth clearance of goods through the customs process in India. Their primary responsibility is to facilitate the clearance of goods through customs by completing various formalities, documentation, and other legal procedures required by the Customs Department. The Customs House Agent Regulations, 2018 govern the registration of CHAs in India, and they must obtain a license from the Customs Department to act as a representative of an importer or exporter in customs-related matters. CHAs must ensure that goods are cleared through customs without any delays or hassles, including documentation, liaising with customs officials, payment of duty, examination of goods, and transportation of goods. The regulations ensure that CHAs have the qualifications, restrictions, and conditions to carry out their duties, and they also lay out the circumstances in which a license may be suspended or revoked. Overall, CH As are essential to ensure that goods are efficiently and legally cleared through customs in India.

Author: Adv.Sneh R. Purohit. 

The post Subletting of CHA licence permissible under Customs Law ? appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The principle of limitation in law embodies the maxim that “long-inoperative claims contain more cruelty than justice.” This fundamental concept underscores the critical importance of statutory time limits for the initiation of legal claims, ensuring that parties do not face indefinite liability and that legal proceedings are conducted within reasonable timeframes. In the realm of customs law, this principle finds expression through specific provisions governing the recovery of duties that have been inadequately levied, short-paid, or erroneously refunded.

The Customs Act, 1962 establishes a structured framework for the recovery of customs duties through Sections 28 and 28AAA, creating distinct mechanisms for different scenarios of duty recovery. These provisions serve as the cornerstone of customs enforcement, balancing the legitimate revenue interests of the state with the rights of importers and exporters to legal certainty and protection from arbitrary enforcement actions.

Legal Framework for Duty Recovery

Section 28: General Provisions for Recovery of of Customs Duties

Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 constitutes the primary provision governing the recovery of duties not levied, short-levied, or erroneously refunded [1]. The section establishes a bifurcated approach to limitation periods, distinguishing between cases involving fraudulent conduct and those arising from genuine errors or oversights.

Under Section 28(1), where any duty has not been levied, paid, or has been short-levied, short-paid, or erroneously refunded for reasons other than collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, the proper officer must serve a show cause notice within two years from the relevant date [2]. This provision reflects the legislature’s recognition that genuine errors in duty assessment should be addressed within a reasonable timeframe, providing certainty to trade participants.

However, the provision adopts a more stringent approach in cases involving fraudulent conduct. Where the duty deficiency results from collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer, exporter, or their agents or employees, the enhanced limitation period extends to five years from the relevant date [3]. This extended timeframe acknowledges the complexity of investigating fraudulent schemes and the need for adequate time to uncover evidence of deliberate misconduct.

The definition of “relevant date” under the Act varies depending on the circumstances, typically referring to the date of assessment, the date of clearance of goods, or the date of refund, as applicable. This specificity ensures that limitation periods are calculated consistently and objectively.

Section 28AAA: Recovery in Cases of Fraudulent Instruments

Section 28AAA was introduced into the Customs Act through Section 122 of the Finance Act, 2012, addressing a specific lacuna in the existing legal framework [4]. This provision targets situations where instruments such as duty credit scrips, advance licenses, or other trade facilitating documents have been obtained through fraudulent means and subsequently utilized by transferees.

The section provides that where an instrument issued to a person has been obtained through collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, and such instrument is utilized by someone other than the person to whom it was originally issued, the duty benefits derived from such instrument shall be deemed never to have been allowed [5]. Consequently, the customs authorities may recover the equivalent duty amount from the original holder of the instrument.

This provision was specifically designed to address judicial pronouncements that limited the recovery of duties to persons directly chargeable with such duties. The landmark case that necessitated this legislative intervention was the Bombay High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Customs v. Jupiter Exports [6].

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases

Jupiter Exports Case: Defining the Scope of Duty Recovery

The Bombay High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Customs v. Jupiter Exports represents a watershed moment in customs law interpretation [6]. The court unequivocally held that duty under Section 28 could only be recovered from “a person chargeable to duty,” which in the context of import duty would be the importer, and in the case of export duty, the exporter.

The court’s reasoning was grounded in the statutory definition of “importer” under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, which encompasses only persons who cause the import of goods or hold themselves out as importers or owners of imported goods [7]. The judgment emphasized that the demand for duty must be based on law rather than equity or moral considerations, establishing a clear legal principle that duty recovery must have proper statutory foundation.

In the Jupiter Exports case, the facts revealed that the importer had utilized an invalid license, but this circumstance alone could not justify recovering import duty from the exporter who had originally obtained the license through fraudulent means. The court held that since the exporter was not the importer, he could not be made liable for import duty, regardless of his role in the fraudulent procurement of the export license.

East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs

The Supreme Court’s decision in East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs stands as one of the earliest landmark pronouncements establishing fundamental legal principles regarding licenses obtained through misrepresentation [8]. This case laid the groundwork for subsequent judicial developments in the area of transferable licenses and duty credit scrips obtained through fraudulent means.

The decision established that the customs authorities must carefully examine the chain of title and the specific roles played by different parties in import and export transactions. The court emphasized that liability for customs duty cannot be imposed arbitrarily but must be grounded in specific statutory provisions that clearly define the scope of such liability.

Post-Section 28AAA Judicial Developments

Following the introduction of Section 28AAA, courts have grappled with interpreting the scope and application of this provision. The section has been invoked in numerous cases involving duty credit scrips, advance authorization schemes, and other export promotion instruments where the original authorization was obtained through fraudulent means.

The judicial approach has generally favored a strict interpretation of the provision, requiring clear evidence of collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts before invoking the extended liability mechanism. Courts have emphasized that the burden of proving fraudulent conduct rests with the revenue authorities and must be established through credible evidence.

Regulatory Framework and Administrative Procedures

Notification and Assessment Procedures

The procedural requirements for recovery of of customs duties under both Sections 28 and 28AAA are governed by detailed rules and notifications issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). These procedures ensure that affected parties receive adequate notice and opportunity to respond to allegations of duty evasion or erroneous claims.

Under Section 28, the show cause notice must specify the amount of duty allegedly evaded or erroneously refunded, the grounds for such determination, and provide the noticee with an opportunity to explain why the demanded amount should not be recovered [9]. The notice must be served within the prescribed limitation period and must contain sufficient details to enable the recipient to prepare an adequate defense.

Pre-Notice Consultation Requirements

Recent amendments to Section 28 have introduced mandatory pre-notice consultation requirements in certain categories of cases [10]. This procedural safeguard ensures that potential disputes are addressed at an early stage and may result in voluntary compliance or settlement before formal enforcement proceedings are initiated.

The pre-notice consultation process involves engagement between the proper officer and the person chargeable with duty, providing an opportunity to clarify factual issues, examine documentary evidence, and potentially resolve disputes through mutual agreement. This procedure reflects the administration’s commitment to promoting voluntary compliance and reducing litigation.

Interest and Penalty Provisions

Section 28AA of the Customs Act provides for the automatic levy of interest on delayed payment of customs duties [11]. The interest rate is prescribed by the Central Government through notifications and currently stands at 24% per annum. This provision serves both as a deterrent against delayed compliance and as compensation to the exchequer for the time value of money.

Penalty provisions under the Act provide additional deterrent mechanisms, with Sections 112, 114, and other relevant provisions prescribing penalties for various categories of contraventions. The quantum of penalty varies depending on the nature and severity of the violation, ranging from monetary penalties to confiscation of goods and conveyance.

Critical Analysis of Legislative Gaps

Absence of Limitation Period in Section 28AAA

One of the most significant deficiencies in Section 28AAA is the absence of any limitation period for initiating proceedings against persons who have obtained instruments through fraudulent means [12]. Unlike Section 28, which provides clear time limits of one year for non-fraudulent cases and five years for fraudulent cases, Section 28AAA contains no temporal restrictions.

This legislative gap creates an inequitable situation where importers and exporters are treated differently under the law. While an importer involved in collusion or wilful misstatement faces a maximum exposure period of five years under Section 28, an exporter who has obtained scrips or instruments through similar fraudulent means faces indefinite liability under Section 28AAA.

The absence of limitation periods in Section 28AAA raises several concerns. First, it violates the fundamental principle of legal certainty, as affected parties cannot determine when their potential liability expires. Second, it creates practical difficulties in evidence gathering and defense preparation, as relevant documents and witnesses may become unavailable over extended periods. Third, it establishes an arbitrary distinction between different categories of customs violations without adequate justification.

Potential for Concurrent Proceedings

Section 28AAA explicitly states that any action taken under this provision shall be without prejudice to any action taken under Section 28 [13]. This formulation creates the possibility of concurrent proceedings against different parties involved in the same transaction, potentially leading to double recovery of the same duty amount.

The proviso to Section 28AAA compounds this problem by permitting simultaneous action against both the person to whom the instrument was issued and the person who utilized such instrument. This approach fails to establish clear priorities for recovery and may result in multiple parties being held liable for the same duty obligation.

Impact on Genuine Trade Participants

The broad language of Section 28AAA may inadvertently affect genuine exporters who have obtained instruments through legitimate means but face allegations of misclassification or other technical violations. For instance, disputes regarding the classification of exported goods under specific tariff headings may be characterized as wilful misstatement, subjecting the exporter to unlimited liability under Section 28AAA.

This situation is particularly problematic in cases involving complex classification issues where reasonable persons may disagree on the appropriate tariff treatment. The absence of limitation periods means that even after successful appeals or settlements, exporters may face fresh proceedings based on the same facts under Section 28AAA.

Recommendations for Legal Reform

Introduction of Limitation Periods

The most urgent reform required in Section 28AAA is the introduction of appropriate limitation periods consistent with those prescribed in Section 28. A maximum period of five years for issuing show cause notices in cases involving collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts would align the provision with established principles while providing adequate time for investigation of complex cases.

Such amendment would ensure parity between importers and exporters while maintaining the deterrent effect of the provision. The limitation period should commence from the date of utilization of the instrument or the date when the fraudulent conduct is discovered, whichever is later, to account for cases where fraudulent schemes remain concealed for extended periods.

Clarification of Recovery Priorities

The legislature should clarify the priority of recovery proceedings under Sections 28 and 28AAA to prevent double jeopardy and ensure that the same duty amount is not recovered multiple times from different parties. Clear guidelines should specify whether recovery under Section 28AAA bars subsequent proceedings under Section 28 for the same transaction or vice versa.

Additionally, the provision should establish a hierarchy of liability, with primary responsibility resting on the party who directly benefited from the fraudulent instrument and secondary liability extending to other participants only in cases where primary recovery is impossible or inadequate.

Enhanced Procedural Safeguards

Given the potentially unlimited liability under Section 28AAA, enhanced procedural safeguards should be introduced to protect the rights of affected parties. These may include mandatory legal representation, enhanced standards of evidence for establishing fraudulent conduct, and appellate review of decisions to invoke Section 28AAA proceedings.

The provision should also incorporate safeguards against frivolous or vexatious proceedings, requiring senior officer approval before initiating Section 28AAA actions and providing for costs to be awarded against the department in cases where allegations are not substantiated.

Impact on International Trade and Commerce

Effect on Export Promotion Schemes

Section 28AAA has significant implications for various export promotion schemes administered by the Government of India. These schemes typically involve the issuance of duty credit scrips, advance authorization, and other trade facilitating instruments that may become subject to recovery proceedings under the provision.

The uncertainty created by unlimited liability periods may deter participation in export promotion schemes, as exporters may prefer to avoid potential future liability rather than avail themselves of available benefits. This outcome would be counterproductive to the government’s objectives of promoting exports and enhancing India’s competitiveness in international markets.

Compliance and Risk Management

The legal uncertainties surrounding Section 28AAA have prompted significant changes in compliance and risk management practices among exporters and importers. Companies are increasingly investing in specialized legal and compliance resources to navigate the complex requirements of customs law and minimize exposure to recovery proceedings.

These compliance costs may disproportionately affect small and medium enterprises that lack the resources to maintain specialized legal expertise. The resulting compliance burden may create barriers to entry for smaller players and concentrate market power among larger entities with superior legal and compliance capabilities.

International Best Practices

A comparative analysis of international customs laws reveals that most jurisdictions provide clear limitation periods for duty recovery proceedings. The European Union Customs Code, for instance, provides a three-year limitation period for most duty recovery actions, with extensions permitted only in specific circumstances involving fraud or significant irregularities.

Similarly, customs laws in major trading jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada, and Australia incorporate defined limitation periods that balance revenue protection with legal certainty for trade participants. India’s adoption of similar approaches would align its customs law with international best practices and enhance its attractiveness as a destination for international trade and investment.

Conclusion

The framework for recovery of customs duties under the Customs Act, 1962 represents a complex interplay of statutory provisions, judicial interpretations, and administrative practices. While Section 28 provides a generally balanced approach to duty recovery with appropriate limitation periods, Section 28AAA suffers from significant legislative gaps that create legal uncertainty and potential inequity.

The absence of limitation periods in Section 28AAA, the potential for concurrent proceedings, and the broad scope of liability under this provision warrant urgent legislative attention. Reform measures should focus on introducing appropriate temporal restrictions, clarifying Recovery of Customs Duties priorities, and enhancing procedural safeguards to protect the legitimate interests of trade participants while preserving the revenue interests of the state.

The customs law framework must evolve to meet the demands of modern international trade while maintaining effective enforcement mechanisms. Legal certainty, predictability, and proportionality should guide future reforms to ensure that India’s customs law regime supports the country’s broader economic objectives while maintaining high standards of compliance and enforcement.

The ultimate goal should be a customs law regime that facilitates legitimate trade, deters fraudulent conduct, and provides clear guidance to all stakeholders regarding their rights and obligations. Only through such balanced approach can India’s customs law framework effectively serve its dual role of revenue generation and trade facilitation in an increasingly complex global trading environment.

References

[1] The Customs Act, 1962, Section 28, available at: https://taxinformation.cbic.gov.in/content/html/tax_repository/customs/acts/1962_custom_act/documents/Customs_Act__1962_30-March-2022.html 

[2] The Customs Act, 1962, Section 28(1), Sub-section (a)

[3] The Customs Act, 1962, Section 28(1), Proviso

[4] The Finance Act, 2012, Section 122 inserting Section 28AAA

[5] The Customs Act, 1962, Section 28AAA(1)

[6] Commissioner of Customs v. Jupiter Exports, 2007 (213) E.L.T. 641 (Bombay High Court)

[7] The Customs Act, 1962, Section 2(26) – Definition of “importer”

[8] East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1983 (13) ELT 1342 (Supreme Court)

[9] The Customs Act, 1962, Section 28(1) – Show cause notice requirements

[10] The Customs Act, 1962, Section 28(1)(a) – Pre-notice consultation provisions

[11] The Customs Act, 1962, Section 28AA – Interest on delayed payments

[12] Analysis of Section 28AAA limitation issues, available at: https://vilgst.com/data/articles/Article%20-%20Section%2028AAA.htm 

[13] The Customs Act, 1962, Section 28AAA – Non-prejudice clause

Download Full Judgement

• https://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/A1962-52.pdf
• https://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/Finance Act, 2012..pdf
• https://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/The_Commissioner_Of_Customs_E_P_vs_Jupiter_Exports_And_3_Ors_on_6_June_2007.PDF
• https://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/East_India_Commerclal_Co_Ltd_vs_The_Collector_Of_Customs_Calcutta_on_4_May_1962.PDF

Written and Authorized by Rutvik Desai

The post Recovery of Customs Duties Under the Customs Act, 1962 appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) represents a landmark legislation in India’s commercial law landscape, designed to consolidate and streamline the insolvency resolution process for corporate entities, individuals, and partnerships. Among its various provisions, the threshold limit provision under Section 4 IBC has emerged as one of the most debated and litigated aspects of the Code. This provision establishes the minimum quantum of defaulted debt required to trigger Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor, serving as a crucial gatekeeping mechanism to prevent frivolous or vexatious proceedings.

The concept of  threshold limit under IBC serves multiple purposes: protecting debtors from harassment through proceedings initiated for trivial amounts, ensuring judicial resources are utilized efficiently, and maintaining the balance between creditor rights and debtor protection. The IBC’s threshold mechanism has undergone significant evolution since its inception, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic’s economic disruptions.

Historical Development and Legislative Framework

Original Threshold Limit Under Section 4 of IBC

Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, originally established the threshold limit at Rs. 1,00,000 (One Lakh Rupees). The section states: “This Part shall apply to matters relating to the insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of default is one lakh rupees: Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, specify the minimum amount of default of higher value which shall not be more than one crore rupees” [1].

This provision empowered the Central Government to modify the threshold limit through executive notification, subject to an upper ceiling of Rs. 1 crore. The relatively low initial threshold of Rs. 1 lakh was designed to ensure accessibility of the insolvency process to smaller creditors, particularly operational creditors who typically deal with smaller transaction values.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Emergency Measures

The outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 necessitated extraordinary economic measures to protect businesses from insolvency proceedings during a period of unprecedented financial stress. Recognizing that the existing threshold of Rs. 1 lakh could lead to a flood of insolvency applications against businesses facing temporary liquidity constraints, the Central Government exercised its powers under the proviso to Section 4.

On March 24, 2020, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued Notification S.O. 1205(E), which increased the minimum threshold limit for initiating CIRP from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000 (One Crore Rupees) [2]. This notification was issued under the extraordinary circumstances prevailing due to the pandemic, with the objective of providing relief to corporate debtors facing financial distress due to the nationwide lockdown and economic disruption.

The notification stated: “In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Central Government hereby specifies the minimum amount of default as rupees one crore in place of rupees one lakh.” This represented a hundred-fold increase in the threshold limit, fundamentally altering the accessibility and scope of insolvency proceedings under the IBC.

Legal Analysis of the Threshold Enhancement

Statutory Interpretation and Scope

The dramatic increase in the threshold limit from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1 crore fundamentally altered the dynamics of insolvency proceedings under the IBC. This change had several immediate implications for different classes of creditors and the overall effectiveness of the insolvency framework.

For financial creditors operating under Section 7 of the IBC, the impact was relatively limited. Financial creditors typically deal with larger loan amounts and often have the flexibility to aggregate multiple defaults or join with other financial creditors to meet the enhanced threshold. Section 7 permits financial creditors to file applications individually or collectively, providing them with strategic options to overcome the higher threshold requirement.

However, operational creditors governed by Section 9 of the IBC faced significantly greater challenges. Operational creditors, including suppliers, service providers, and contractors, typically have smaller individual exposures and cannot aggregate their claims with other operational creditors in the same manner as financial creditors. The requirement that each operational creditor individually meet the Rs. 1 crore threshold effectively excluded a vast majority of operational creditors from accessing the insolvency process.

Impact on Different Classes of Creditors

The enhanced threshold created a dichotomous effect on the creditor landscape. Large corporate creditors and major financial institutions could still effectively utilize the IBC mechanism, while smaller businesses, individual entrepreneurs, and micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) found themselves largely excluded from the process. This outcome arguably contradicted one of the IBC’s fundamental objectives of creating an inclusive and accessible insolvency resolution framework.

The differential impact on operational versus financial creditors also raised questions about the equitable treatment of different creditor classes under the Code. While the original design of the IBC sought to balance the interests of various stakeholder categories, the enhanced threshold appeared to create an inherent bias favoring financial creditors over operational creditors.

Judicial Interpretation and Prospective Application

The Landmark Arrowline Organic Products Case

The question of whether the enhanced threshold limit would apply retrospectively or prospectively became the subject of extensive litigation across various National Company Law Tribunals (NCLTs). The most significant judicial pronouncement on this issue came from the NCLT Chennai in the case of M/s Arrowline Organic Products Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Rockwell Industries Limited [3].

In this case, the corporate debtor challenged the maintainability of insolvency proceedings initiated before March 24, 2020, arguing that the enhanced threshold should apply to all pending cases. The NCLT Chennai, however, rejected this contention and held that the notification increasing the threshold limit would apply only prospectively, not affecting cases where defaults had occurred and proceedings had been initiated before the notification date.

Constitutional and Legislative Principles

The NCLT Chennai’s decision was grounded in well-established constitutional and legislative principles governing the retrospective application of executive notifications. The tribunal relied on several Supreme Court precedents to reach its conclusion, establishing important jurisprudential principles for the application of threshold modifications under the IBC.

In the case of Bakul Cashew Co. vs. Sales Tax Officer Quilon, the Supreme Court established the fundamental principle that only the legislature possesses the inherent power to make laws with retrospective effect [4]. When legislative powers are delegated to executive authorities, such powers are limited in scope and cannot ordinarily be exercised retrospectively unless expressly authorized by the parent statute.

Applying this principle to the IBC context, the NCLT observed that the notification enhancing the threshold limit was issued by the Central Government under delegated legislative powers conferred by Section 4. Since the statute did not expressly authorize retrospective application of such notifications, the enhanced threshold could only apply prospectively to future cases.

The tribunal further strengthened its reasoning by referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Indramaniyarelal Gupta v. W. R. Nath, which held that while the legislature has inherent powers to enact retrospective legislation, executive authorities exercising delegated powers cannot assume such retrospective authority without express statutory authorization [5].

The Kirti Kapoor Precedent

The NCLT Chennai also drew support from the Division Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Kirti Kapoor v. Union of India, which dealt with similar threshold enhancement under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [6]. Although the Rajasthan High Court did not explicitly term the notification as prospective, it applied the doctrine of conditional legislation to hold that such notifications should apply only to future applicants.

This precedent provided additional jurisprudential support for the prospective application principle, establishing a consistent judicial approach across different insolvency and debt recovery statutes in India.

Practical Implications and Implementation Challenges

Operational Creditor Disadvantage

The enhanced threshold limit under IBC created significant practical challenges for operational creditors seeking to recover debts through the IBC mechanism. Unlike financial creditors who typically maintain long-term relationships with corporate borrowers and have larger exposure limits, operational creditors often deal with smaller, transaction-specific obligations.

The requirement for individual operational creditors to meet the Rs. 1 crore threshold effectively eliminated the viability of IBC proceedings for most supplier and service provider relationships. This outcome was particularly problematic for MSMEs, which form the backbone of India’s industrial ecosystem but typically have smaller individual transaction values with their corporate customers.

Strategic Implications for Corporate Debtors

From the perspective of corporate debtors, the enhanced threshold provided significant protection against frivolous or harassment-oriented insolvency proceedings. Companies facing temporary financial distress, particularly during the pandemic period, could avoid premature insolvency proceedings initiated by smaller creditors for relatively minor defaults.

However, this protection came at the cost of potentially enabling strategic default behavior by corporate debtors who might delay payments to smaller creditors, knowing that individual creditors would be unable to initiate insolvency proceedings. This moral hazard aspect of the enhanced threshold raised concerns about the overall integrity of commercial relationships and payment disciplines in the corporate sector.

Judicial Efficiency and Resource Allocation

The enhanced threshold also had positive implications for judicial efficiency and resource allocation within the NCLT system. By filtering out smaller-value cases, the enhanced threshold helped reduce the caseload burden on NCLTs, allowing them to focus on larger, more complex insolvency matters that have greater systemic importance.

However, this efficiency gain came at the cost of access to justice for smaller creditors, raising fundamental questions about the appropriate balance between judicial efficiency and stakeholder access to legal remedies.

Contemporary Judicial Developments

NCLT Delhi’s Interpretation

Subsequent to the Chennai NCLT decision, other benches of the NCLT have generally followed the prospective application principle established in the Arrowline case. The NCLT Delhi, in the case of Udit Jain (Sole Proprietor of M/s U.J. Trading Co.) vs. Apace Builders and Contractors Pvt. Ltd, further clarified that the Rs. 1 crore threshold must be fulfilled by the applicant on the date of filing the application [7].

This interpretation added an additional layer of complexity by requiring creditors to ensure that their claim amount meets the threshold requirement at the time of filing, rather than at the time of default occurrence. This temporal distinction has important implications for cases involving interest accrual, penalty charges, and other time-dependent components of debt calculation.

High Court Interventions

The Kerala High Court’s intervention in the threshold limit controversy added another dimension to the judicial discourse. In a case involving insolvency proceedings initiated with respect to an alleged default of Rs. 31 lakhs, the Kerala High Court stayed an NCLT order that had applied the prospective application principle [8]. This intervention highlighted the ongoing judicial debate about the appropriate application of the enhanced threshold limit and suggested that the issue may require definitive resolution by higher judicial authorities.

Regulatory Framework and Current Status

Current Threshold Limit Status under IBC

As of 2025, the enhanced threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore continues to remain in effect, despite the gradual normalization of economic conditions following the pandemic. The persistence of this enhanced threshold has raised questions about whether the temporary pandemic-relief measure has effectively become a permanent feature of the IBC framework.

The continuation of the higher threshold limit suggests that the government may have determined that the enhanced threshold provides benefits beyond pandemic relief, including reduced frivolous litigation and improved judicial efficiency. However, this decision continues to be debated among insolvency practitioners and legal experts.

Regulatory Considerations for Reform

The current threshold framework under the IBC presents several regulatory considerations that may warrant future reform. The stark differential between the original Rs. 1 lakh threshold and the current Rs. 1 crore threshold suggests that an intermediate threshold level might better balance the competing interests of creditor access and debtor protection.

Some legal experts have suggested implementing a graduated threshold system that differentiates between various types of creditors or industries, similar to the approach adopted in some international insolvency jurisdictions. Such an approach could provide tailored threshold limits that reflect the specific characteristics and needs of different sectors of the economy.

Comparative Analysis with International Practices

International Threshold Practices

International insolvency regimes typically employ varying approaches to threshold limits, reflecting different policy priorities and economic contexts. The United States Bankruptcy Code, for instance, does not impose specific monetary thresholds for initiating bankruptcy proceedings but instead relies on other eligibility criteria and procedural safeguards to prevent abuse.

In contrast, the United Kingdom’s insolvency framework employs multiple threshold levels depending on the type of procedure being initiated. For company voluntary arrangements, the threshold is relatively low, while compulsory liquidation requires higher statutory demand amounts. This graduated approach provides flexibility while maintaining appropriate protective mechanisms.

Lessons for Indian Reform

The international experience suggests that threshold limit design should consider sector-specific characteristics, creditor types, and overall economic conditions. A one-size-fits-all approach, as currently employed under the IBC, may not adequately address the diverse needs of India’s complex economic landscape.

Future reforms to the IBC threshold framework could benefit from incorporating flexible mechanisms that allow for periodic adjustment based on economic conditions, inflation indices, or sector-specific considerations. Such adaptive mechanisms could provide the regulatory agility needed to respond to changing economic circumstances without requiring frequent legislative or executive interventions.

Economic Impact and Policy Considerations

Impact on Credit Markets and Commercial Relationships

The enhanced threshold limit under IBC has had significant implications for credit markets and commercial relationships in India. Suppliers and service providers have been compelled to reassess their credit policies and payment terms when dealing with corporate customers, knowing that the IBC remedy may not be available for smaller defaults.

This change has likely contributed to more cautious credit extension practices among operational creditors, potentially affecting the overall liquidity and efficiency of commercial markets. Some businesses have reportedly shifted toward advance payment requirements or shorter credit terms to mitigate the risk of irrecoverable smaller debts.

MSME Sector Implications

The enhanced threshold has disproportionately affected the MSME sector, which typically operates with smaller transaction values and limited financial resources. MSMEs serving larger corporate clients have found themselves in a particularly vulnerable position, lacking effective legal remedies for debt recovery through the IBC process.

This vulnerability has broader economic implications, as MSMEs constitute a significant portion of India’s industrial base and employment generation. The inability of MSMEs to effectively utilize insolvency proceedings for debt recovery may have contributed to increased payment delays and working capital constraints in this crucial sector.

Future Outlook and Recommendations

Need for Balanced Reform

The experience with the enhanced threshold limit under the IBC highlights the need for a more nuanced and balanced approach to threshold design. Future reforms should consider implementing a graduated threshold system that recognizes the different characteristics and needs of various creditor categories.

A potential reform approach could involve establishing different threshold limits for financial creditors, operational creditors, and different industry sectors. Such differentiation could preserve the accessibility of insolvency proceedings for smaller operational creditors while maintaining appropriate safeguards against frivolous litigation.

Technological Solutions and Alternative Mechanisms

The digital transformation of India’s legal and financial systems presents opportunities for developing alternative mechanisms for smaller debt recovery cases. Online dispute resolution platforms, automated recovery systems, and digital payment enforcement mechanisms could provide efficient alternatives to formal insolvency proceedings for smaller defaults.

Integrating such technological solutions with the IBC framework could help address the access to justice concerns raised by the enhanced threshold while maintaining the efficiency benefits of filtering smaller cases out of the formal insolvency process.

Conclusion

The threshold limit provision under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code represents a critical balance point between creditor access and debtor protection in India’s insolvency framework. The dramatic increase from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1 crore in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally altered the landscape of insolvency proceedings, creating both intended benefits and unintended consequences.

The judicial interpretation establishing the prospective application of the enhanced threshold has provided important jurisprudential clarity while highlighting the constitutional principles governing executive power and retrospective legislation. However, the continued application of the enhanced threshold long after the pandemic emergency raises important questions about the appropriate permanent level for the IBC threshold.

The experience with threshold modification under the IBC offers valuable lessons for future policy development in insolvency law. The need for flexible, adaptive mechanisms that can respond to changing economic conditions while maintaining appropriate stakeholder protections is evident from the challenges experienced during this transition.

As India’s economy continues to evolve and mature, the IBC framework must similarly adapt to ensure that it continues to serve its fundamental objectives of facilitating efficient insolvency resolution while protecting the legitimate interests of all stakeholders. The threshold limit provision, as a key gatekeeping mechanism, will undoubtedly continue to play a crucial role in shaping the effectiveness and accessibility of India’s insolvency regime.

Future reforms should focus on creating a more nuanced and balanced threshold framework that recognizes the diverse needs of India’s complex economic ecosystem while maintaining the efficiency and integrity of the insolvency process. Only through such thoughtful evolution can the IBC continue to serve as an effective tool for economic development and commercial confidence in India’s dynamic business environment.

References

[1] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 4.

[2] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Notification S.O. 1205(E) dated March 24, 2020. 

[3] M/s Arrowline Organic Products Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Rockwell Industries Limited, NCLT Chennai. Available at: https://ibclaw.in/m-s-arrowline-organic-products-pvt-ltd-vs-m-s-rockwell-industries-ltd-nclt/ 

[4] Bakul Cashew Co. vs. Sales Tax Officer Quilon, Supreme Court of India. 

[5] Indramaniyarelal Gupta v. W. R. Nath, Supreme Court of India. 

[6] Kirti Kapoor v. Union of India, Rajasthan High Court.

[7] Udit Jain vs. Apace Builders and Contractors Pvt. Ltd, NCLT Delhi. Available at: https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/ibc-minimum-threshold-rs-1-crore-date-filing-petition.html 

[8] Kerala High Court intervention in threshold limit case. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/ibc-threshold-march-24-notification-one-crore-kerala-high-court-stays-nclt-167125 

[9] Analysis of threshold limit developments. Available at: https://ibclaw.in/important-judgments-on-threshold-limit-increased-from-1-lakh-to-1-crore-for-filing-cirp-application-under-section-7-or-9-of-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-ibc/ 

The post Threshold Limit Under IBC: Legal Framework and Judicial Interpretations appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

Judiciary in India is the system of courts which interpret and apply the law and settle various legal debates that citizens linger upon from time to time. The Indian Judiciary System administers a common law system which encompasses into the law of the land customs, securities and legislations. The Supreme Court is the apex court, and the last appellate in India while the High Courts are the top judicial bodies in the states controlled and managed by the Chief Justices of the state. Tribunals on the other hand are set up for meting out various administrative and tax related disputes.

Appeal

• High Courts: 

1. The decree or judgment passed by the court can be challenged on the basis of the facts of the case and the legal interpretation of the legal provisions.
2. In the cases where the party to the dispute raises any objection with respect to the territorial and pecuniary of the court passing the judgment and the decree.
3. On the basis of the failure of justice relating to the incompetence of the court.
4. In the cases where the parties to the dispute have not joined in the original suit, in such matters appeal lies against the judgment/ decree of such court.
5. Where there is a challenge to the interpretation of law which are applied by the subordinate court
6. On the grounds of any defect or error or irregularity in the legal proceedings of the case
7. In the cases where the substantial question of law exists and it is affecting the rights of the parties.

• Supreme Court:

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the High Court concerned under Article 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of the Constitution in respect of any judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases, involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Appeals also lie to the Supreme Court in civil matters if the High Court concerned certifies : (a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance, and (b) that, in the opinion of the High Court, the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. In criminal cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court (a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any Court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (c) certified that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. Parliament is authorised to confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgement, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court.

The Supreme Court has also a very wide appellate jurisdiction over all Courts and Tribunals in India in as much as it may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India.

• Tribunals:

The Central Government shall constitute an Appellate Tribunal to be called the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal consisting of as many judicial and technical members as it thinks fit to exercise the powers and discharge the functions conferred on the Appellate Tribunal by this Act. A judicial member shall be a person who has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India or who has been a member of the Indian Legal Service and has held a post in Grade I of that service or any equivalent or higher post for at least three years, or who has been an advocate for at least ten years.

Powers

• High Courts:

1. It has the power to control over all the courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction except in the matters of Armed Forces under Article 227.
2. It has the power to withdraw a case pending before any subordinate court if it involves the substantial question of law.
3. It is a Court of Record like the Supreme Court which involves recording of judgements, proceedings etc (Article 215).
4. Under the Article 13 & 226 High Court has the power of judicial review. They have the authority to declare any law or ordinance as unconstitutional if it seems to be against the Constitution of India.
5. It can appoint the administration staff according to the need and can decide their salaries, allowance etc.
6. It issues the rules and regulations for the working of subordinate courts.

• Supreme Court:

1. Power to punish for contempt (civil or criminal) of court with simple imprisonment for 6 months or fine up to Rs. 2000. Civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment. Criminal contempt means doing any act which lowers the authority of the court or causing interference in judicial proceedings.
2. Judicial review to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders. The grounds of review are limited by Parliamentary legislation or rules made by the Supreme Court.
3. Deciding authority regarding the election of President and Vice President.
4. Enquiring authority in the conduct and behaviour of UPSC members.
5. Withdraw cases pending before High Courts and dispose of them themselves.
6. Appointment of ad hoc judges- Article 127 states that if at any time there is a lack of quorum of Judges of Supreme Court, the CJI may with the previous consent of the President and Chief Justice of High Court, concerning request in writing the attendance of Judge of High Court duly qualified to be appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court.
7. Appointment of retired judges of the Supreme Court or High Court – Article 128 states that the CJI at any time with the previous consent of the President and the person to be so appointed can appoint any person who had previously held the office of a Judge of SC.
8. Appointment of acting Chief Justice- Article 126 states that when the office of CJI is vacant or when the Chief Justice is by reason of absence or otherwise unable to perform duties of the office, the President in such a case can appoint a Judge of the court to discharge the duties of the office.
9. Revisory Jurisdiction- The Supreme Court under Article 137 is empowered to review any judgment or order made by it with a view to removing any mistake or error that might have crept in the judgement or order.
10. Supreme Court as a Court of Record- The Supreme Court is a court of record as its decisions are of evidentiary value and cannot be questioned in any court.

• Tribunals:

1. A Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made by the Central Government, the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its inquiry and decided whether to sit in public or in private.
2. A tribunal shall decide every application made to it as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every application shall be decided on a perusal of documents and written representations and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced.
3. A Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely :

(a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) subject to the provisions of section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office;

(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or, documents;

(f) reviewing its decisions;

(g) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte;

(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and

(i) any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government.

Limitations

• High Courts:

The limitation for filing an appeal from a sentence of death passed by court of sessions or the High Court in its original jurisdiction is 30 days and from any other sentence or order to the High Court is 60 days and to any other court is 30 days.

The period of limitation against an order of acquittal is 90 days but where appeal against such order has to be made after seeking special leave of the court, the period of limitation is 30 days.

• Supreme Court:

1. If an appeal under Section 37 is preferred against an arbitral award in arbitration less than the Specified Value, the same would be governed by Article 116 / Article 117 of the Limitation Act. Under these provisions, the limitation period is computed in the manner recorded in Table I above.
2. If an appeal under Section 37 is preferred against an arbitral award in arbitration of a dispute of the Specified Value, the appeal will be governed by Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2010(hereinafter referred as “CC”) . The limitation period provided under the CC Act being a special law would apply as compared with the Limitation Act which is a general law, as per section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Section 13(1A) of the CC Act lays down a period of limitation of 60 days for all appeals; this would therefore be the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act. The Supreme Court considered the judgment in Kandla Export Corpn. v. OCI Corporation, to deal with the interplay between Section 13 of the CC Act and Section 37 of the A&C Act.

• Tribunals

1. Against the Rule of Law: It can be observed that the establishment of the administrative tribunals has repudiated the concept of rule of law. Rule of law was propounded to promote equality before the law and supremacy of ordinary law over the arbitrary functioning of the government. The administrative tribunals somewhere restrict the ambit of the rule of law by providing separate laws and procedures for certain matters.
2. Lack of specified procedure: The administrative adjudicatory bodies do not have any rigid set of rules and procedures. Thus, there is a chance of violation of the principle of natural justice.
3. No prediction of future decisions: Since the administrative tribunals do not follow precedents, it is not possible to predict future decisions.
4. Scope of Arbitrariness: The civil and criminal courts work on a uniform code of procedure as prescribed under C.P.C and Crpc respectively. But the administrative tribunals have no such stringent procedure. They are allowed to make their own procedure which may lead to arbitrariness in the functioning of these tribunals.
5. Absence of legal expertise: It is not necessary that the members of the administrative tribunals must belong to a legal background. They may be the experts of different fields but not essentially trained in judicial work. Therefore, they may lack the required legal expertise which is an indispensable part of resolving disputes.

       Submitted by

        Roshi Surele

The post Powers & Limitation of Tribunal & Appeal To High Court & Supreme Court. appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The significance of committee of creditors (hereinafter referred to as ‘CoC’) can be seen throughout the different stages of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’), in Part II (corporate persons) and Part III (individuals and partnership firms) of the IBC. However, Part II of the IBC does not explicitly define CoC for corporate persons, though CoC is a defined term for individuals and partnership firms in Part III of the IBC.

As per, Sections 18(c) read with 21, once all claims against the corporate debtor are collated the Interim Resolution Professional is duty bound to constitute a CoC. Generally, all the financial creditors make up the CoC and each financial creditor wields voting rights in proportion to the financial debt owed to them. In the situation where a corporate debtor does not have any financial creditors, the proviso to Section 21(8) contemplates and envisages that a CoC will be constituted in terms of Regulation 16 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (‘2016 Regulations’).

The committee of creditors has been enabled and empowered as board of directors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ( hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’ ), to take the decisions in respect of the Corporate Debtor, during the process of the corporate insolvency resolution process. In pursuance of this enabling system, the adjudicating authority while initiating the process of CIRP for a company, appoints a resolution professional, who executes and co-ordinates all the decision making during the CIRP and thereby conducts the CIRP of the company. As per Section 28 of the code, it is mandatory for Resolution  professionals to take prior approval of the CoC.

Brief history

The primary objective of the codification of Insolvency and Bankruptcy was based on time-bound resolution of debt, maximization of asset-value and revival of the corporate debtor. In the furtherance of the aforementioned objective, the Banking Law Reforms Committee has accentuated upon the “rights of creditors” under the Code. In 2015 report BLRC emphasized on the following-

“… When default takes place, control is supposed to transfer to the creditors; equity owners have no say.”

Not only, BLRC acknowledge the weakness of creditors under the prevalent bankruptcy regime but also, they contended to vest power in the hands of the creditor at the time of financial distress. The same was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Innoventive Ind. v. ICICI Bank. Thus, further empowering the creditors of the corporate debtor; in order to promote effective resolution of debts and to ensure the revival of the company.

Recent Changes and pertinent Judgements

In the case of Innoventive Industries v. ICICI Bank, the court reiterated and upheld the viewpoint of BLRC committee stating “when the company or a corporate entity makes any kind of default, the control shall necessarily shift to the creditors and shall not remain in the hands of the management of the company.” Further, in the case of Swiss Ribbon v. Union of India, the court ruled that the Financial creditor are involved in the processes of Corporate Debtor from the beginning and hence their presence in restructuring is essential to ascertain and remove the financial stress, which is not present with the operational creditors.” In the case, Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. Spade Financial Services Ltd., the question of law involved was  Section 21 (8) of the Code regarding the creation and constitution of the CoC. The issue demurred, was whether the related party status if extended to a FC shall be as per the present status or shall be as per the time when the financial debt was incurred. In the instant case the court has taken a purposive interpretation rather than literal interpretation and held that if an FC who is a related party tries to do away with such tag of related party through any act and acts in such manner with a sole motive of entering the CoC, shall not be the part of the CoC and will be restricted through provision first of Section 21(2).

Comparison with International Scenarios

As defined under section 21(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, “the Committee of Creditors(CoC) shall comprise of all financial creditors of the financial debtor provided that…..” this means composition of the committee is already defined under the given code.

However, in the US bankruptcy code, the Creditor’s Committee’s  composition is not predefined, rather a US Bankruptcy trustee is in charge of choosing who will be included in the same.

In Germany, the provisional committee is taken as a compulsory committee according to Sec. 22a para. 1 of the German Insolvency Code. The appointment is resolved upon by the Creditor’s Assembly.

Therefore, the procedure for the appointment of the committee varies vastly when it comes to the appointing body.

Suggestions

There are instances where CoC exercises certain unbridled powers, such as, at the  time of change of Resolution Professional in terms of Section 27 of the IBC, CoC is not obliged to record its reasons. Additionally, the IBC does not subject the resolution plan per se to judicial scrutiny and the limits of judicial review have been circumscribed to the parameters in Section 30(2) and Section 61(3) of the IBC.  IBC has cordoned off the entire bankruptcy framework in such a way that once the Coc is constituted under  Section 21, it exercises exclusive access to negotiations and retains the final hand in dealing business decisions.

Conclusion

The recent judgements explaining the purview of appointment of committee of creditors shall certainly be a boon for the insolvency regime in the country and will lead to development of trust in the same. The above mentioned judgments clear the standpoint regarding who can be appointed in the Committee of Creditors, ensuring that the Resolution Proceedings be not only expeditious but also genuine and fair. 

Submitted by-

  ROSHI SURELE

The post Difference between SICA Vs. IBC appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) regulating the obligation of personal guarantors to corporate debtors were affirmed in a recent decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India. With the judgement in place, creditors can now file insolvency proceedings against people such as promoters, managing directors, and chairpersons who act as personal guarantors on loans made to corporate debtors or goods and services provided to them.

A personal guarantor is a person or an organization who agrees to pay another person’s debt if the latter fails to do so. This concept of ‘guarantee’ is derived from Section 126 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872.[1] When banks want collateral that equals the risk they are taking by lending to a company that may not be performing well, a promoter or promoter entity is most likely to provide a personal guarantee. It differs from the collateral that businesses provide to banks in order to obtain loans, because Indian corporate law stipulates that individuals, such as promoters, are distinct from businesses, and that the two are distinct entities.

Brief Legal History

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs published a Notification on November 15, 2019, bringing personal guarantors into the scope of insolvency proceedings under the IBC. The goal was to hold the promoters of the defaulting enterprises accountable for providing personal guarantees for the loans taken out by their enterprises. The lenders filed bankruptcy claims against India’s leading business tycoons, including Anil Ambani, Kapil Wadhawan, and Sanjay Singal, in accordance with the requirements. Many promoters opposed the new laws in several high courts, alleging that the promoters alone should not be held accountable for loan repayment failure.

 In October 2021, the Supreme Court reassigned to itself a slew of writ petitions contesting the IBC’s personal insolvency rules that had been pending in several high courts. When the government issued the notification on personal insolvency in December 2019, the provisions were challenged in court by as many as 19 promoters, who claimed that the company was always run by a management board and that the promoters alone should not be held liable for debt repayment default. As many as 75 promoters and guarantors had challenged the personal insolvency provisions by the time the Supreme Court moved all the cases to itself in December 2020.

Outlook of the petitioners

Firstly, the petitioners believed that the Central Government had overstepped its authority by issuing the Notification, which changed Part III of the IBC in an unjustifiable manner. . Because the legislature made the law in its entirety, leaving nothing for the executive to legislate on, it was referred to as “conditional” rather than “delegated.”[2] Further, the petitioners argued that the rules of the Notification, establish a single procedure for a personal guarantor’s insolvency resolution, regardless of whether the creditor is a financial creditor or an operational creditor. In Swiss Ribbons (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India,[3] the court determined that the nature of loan arrangements executed by a corporate debtor with financial creditors differed significantly from contracts with operational creditors for the supply of products and services. Combining financial and operational creditors equates to treating unequal’s alike and a breakdown of the categorization carefully formed by the Parliament.

Lastly, the promoters and guarantors were of the opinion that the guarantor’s obligation was co-extensive[4] with the corporate debtor’s, and if a resolution plan was approved, the personal guarantor’s responsibility would be extinguished as well. The petitioners relied on the decision in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta[5] wherein the court observed that an approval of a resolution plan in respect of a corporate debtor amounted to the extinction of all outstanding claims against the debtor.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court stated that it was clear that the mechanism used by the Central Government to implement certain provisions of the Act had a specific purpose: to achieve the IBC’s objectives in relation to the priorities. “The apex court said there was an intrinsic connection between personal guarantors and their corporate debtors and it was this “intimate” connection that made the government recognize personal guarantors as a “separate species” under the IBC.”[6]

According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there appeared to be compelling grounds why the forum for adjudicating insolvency processes should be common which should be through the NCLT. The NCLT would thus be able to look at the big picture, so to speak, of the nature of the assets available, whether during the corporate debtor’s insolvency proceedings or afterward. The Committee of Creditors would be better able to frame realistic resolution plans if they had a complete picture, keeping in mind the possibility of recovering some of the creditor’s dues from personal guarantors. Based on this discussion, the Court concluded that the contested notification was neither a legislative act nor an instance of improper and selective application of the IBC’s provisions.

The court also cleared up a misunderstanding among petitioners that acceptance of a resolution plan for corporate debtors would also discharge the personal guarantor’s obligations and said that The release or discharge of a principal borrower from his or her obligation by operation of law, or as a result of a liquidation or bankruptcy procedure, does not absolve the surety/guarantor of his or her duty arising from an independent contract. As a result, the Notification was found to be legal and valid, and the writ petitions, transferred cases, and transfer petitions in this case were all dismissed.

Analysis and aftermath

The government has started the procedure and currently offers a full solution for the Corporate Debtor’s CIRP as well as the individual who has supplied a guarantee for that Corporate Debtor. As a result, the gap or limitation in the IBC that had previously limited the adjudication of cases involving corporate guarantors solely has been lifted, and creditors will now be entitled to seek repayment from either of them, i.e. the Corporate Debtor or the Personal Guarantor of the Corporate Debtor. Though the obligations were always coextensive legally in accordance with established principles of law, MCA has now brought Corporate Debtor and Personal Guarantor into the same operational platform. Following that, such personal guarantors might file a claim for insolvency with NCLT.

This will be a significant boost because lenders will now be empowered to pursue funds from promoters/personal guarantors if the amount recovered from the Corporate Debtor is insufficient, and in cases where bankers initiate IBC procedures, they may have to re-evaluate the entire ground scenario. Though the development is exactly as expected, it may cause some anxiety among promoters, particularly those who are either facing IBC procedures (or are expecting to face IBC due to defaults) or who are likely to face IBC due to defaults. This may also force promoters to consider and strategize about the extent to which they might use their personal assets to obtain corporate financing.

Similarly, despite such notification, advisers’ jobs may not be easy due to unanswered questions such as how to handle dual legal cases; to what extent can a creditor collect money from a personal guarantor, and the practical challenges of pursuing both for recovery, among others. As a result, these issues may be presented in a court of law shortly, and the appropriate honorable courts will investigate these issues in accordance with the law and equity principles.

Conclusion

Many famous industrialists who are the promoters of debt-ridden enterprises would be concerned by the ruling but many creditors will breathe a sigh of relief as a result of the immediate judgement, which has opened the door to the personal guarantors’ asset pool under the IBC. Personal guarantors are more likely to “arrange” for the payment of the debt to the creditor bank in order to achieve a quick discharge if insolvency proceedings are filed against them.

Though only time will tell how such things develop and how honest courts administer justice, the government appears to be on the right track to achieve its goal of instilling financial discipline among borrowers, particularly corporate borrowers.

[1] Indian Contract act, 1872, Act No. 9, Section 126

[2] Vasu Dev Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2006 12 SCC 753.

[3] Swiss Ribbons (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2019 4 SCC 17

[4] Kundanlal Dabriwala v. Haryana Financial Corporation, 2012 171 Comp Cas 94

[5] Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, 2019 SCC 1478

[6] Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India and Ors., Transfer Case (Civil) No. 245/2020

Written by: Aditya Sharma

The post Personal Guarantors Liable for Corporate Debt: Comprehending Supreme Court’s verdict. appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

 Introduction: 

A creditors’ committee is a group of people who represent a company’s creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding. As such, a creditors’ committee has broad rights and responsibilities, including devising a reorganization plan for bankrupt companies or deciding whether they should be liquidated. The creditors’ committee is usually further divided between secured and unsecured creditors.

Brief Legal history: 

The Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee (‘BLRC’) was tasked with the onerous responsibility of rewiring the insolvency and bankruptcy framework in India. The BLRC presented an exhaustive report in November 2015 (‘BLRC Report’) for crafting a comprehensive code.

The Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) was fashioned as one of the steering bodies driving the insolvency process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Part II of the IBC does not define CoC for corporate persons, though CoC is a defined term for individuals and partnership firms in Part III of the IBC.

Recent Changes: 

Generally, as per IBC, the COC consists of the financial creditors only. In other words, all the Creditors who have financed the corporate debtor against the consideration of time value of money are included in the Committee of Creditors. In case if there are no financial creditors, in such case eighteen largest Operational Creditors along with one representative from workmen and from employee will be the members of the COC. The powers of these members are quite akin to the powers of the members of the financial creditors. The Operational creditors will not find any place in the COC except in case if the debt of the operational creditors are more than 10%, in such case the operational creditors will participate the COC through a representative. after supreme court’s judgement on Essar Steel case, it can be concluded that the Code is moving towards achieving its intended goal of swift redeployment of productive assets trapped in insolvent companies, and discouraging the notion that big loans are the lenders’ problem, not the borrowers’. The net result is significantly positive for credit discipline in India.

Important Judgement:  

Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorized Signatory v. Satish Kumar Gupta

A petition for initiating the insolvency resolution process against Essar was admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal. ArcelorMittal was the successful resolution applicant. The resolution plan submitted by ArcelorMittal provided that the operational creditors with an exposure of above INR 1 crore would not be entitled to any distributions. The NCLT approved ArcelorMittal’s resolution plan and asked the CoC to distribute 85% of the amount under the resolution plan amongst financial creditors and the remaining 15% amongst the operational creditors. The decision of NCLT was subsequently challenged. Hon’ble supreme court upheld the primacy of the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) in distribution of funds of INR 42,000 crore received under the resolution plan submitted by ArcelorMittal.

Role the COC in CIPR (corporate insolvency resolution process): The Supreme Court upheld the concept of supremacy of the commercial wisdom of the CoC in approval of the resolution plan, provided they take into consideration/ account for interest of all stakeholders.

 Comparison with International Scenarios: 

The Bankruptcy Law Review Committee report 2015 pondered upon various aspects of the Code including the formation and composition of the CoC, concluding that members of the CoC have to be creditors both with the capability to assess viability, as well as be willing to modify terms of existing liabilities in negotiations. With this reasoning, operational creditors were intentionally left out of the CoC under the presumption that such creditors would neither be able to decide on matters regarding the insolvency of the entity, nor would they be willing to take the risk of postponing payments for better future prospects. This reasoning of the BLRC stands in stark contrast with the Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law (“LGIL“) proposed by The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL“), wherein the UNCITRAL recognised that the first key objective of a resolution process is to balance the advantages of near-term debt collection through liquidation against preserving the value of the debtor’s business through reorganization.

UK Insolvency laws: Secured creditors are generally not represented on a creditor committee if they are fully secured or over-secured. Where they are under-secured, however, their interests are more likely to align with those of unsecured creditors and their participation in the committee or in voting by creditors may be appropriate, at least to the extent that they are under-secured. An example of this would be the Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) mechanism under UK insolvency laws, where secured creditors are entitled to vote only in specific circumstances.

Under German insolvency law: the creditors vote by groups. The consent of every group is needed. Within a group the majority of creditors (as headcount) and creditors having the majority of debt need to approve the insolvency plan.

Changes and Suggestions:

 The legislature was quick to amend the Code to protect the interests of homebuyers by according them the status of a financial creditor, allowing each and every homebuyer irrespective of the quantum of his financial debt to a vote on the CoC. it has is tilted the already lopsided scales further against operational creditors, ultimately leading to frequent challenges to resolution plans by operational creditors before courts and delaying the resolution process.

Conclusion: 

A comprehensive overhaul of the constitution of the CoC is thus urgently required to preserve the purpose and the actual intent of the Code. A reference could be made to Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, where certain provisions are made that secure the interests of all creditors. This security is however, contingent on the actual appointment of operational creditors to the CoC which is the primary need of the hour.

Submitted by: Purvi Goyal

The post Constitution of Committee of Creditor appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

On 4th April 2015, the Commerce and Industry Minister, Govt of India, Mrs. Nirmala Sita Raman, introduced the Indian Foreign Trade Policy for 2015-20. The Foreign Trade Policy has been formulated for five years. It appears into, regulates and legal guidelines are enacted for the export and import of goods. The creation of the Foreign Trade Policy is incorporated with the imaginative and prescient of the Honorable Prime Minister of India on ‘Make in India’, ‘Digital India’, and ‘Skills India’. The government of India has formulated the trade policy as a way to improve ‘ease of doing business’.
Improving export and import will assist India in being a contributor to the prevailing technology of globalization. The approved framework of Foreign Trade Policy is Directorates General of Foreign Trade. The state of the external environment and new features of the global trading landscape such as mega regional agreements and global value chains will profoundly affect India’s trade. Aim is to help various sectors of the Indian economy to gain global competitiveness.

Legal framework

According to Section 5 of the Foreign Trade ( Development and Regulations) Act 1992, the government of India can from time to time formulate laws relating to Foreign Trade Policy. This section also specifies that the laws made should have special provisions or exceptions should be included for Special Economic Zones. The provisions below Foreign Trade Policy are unique provisions and could be successful over well known ones. If any benefits were provided earlier than the date of graduation of the Foreign Trade Policy then it’ll continue.

● DGFT has been assisting the clients by giving them time schedules. It has also provided email id, phone number, a website for the stakeholders to communicate and to facilitate  them. Further, help desks have also been established in different zones. DGFT has also been modernized by allowing an online complaint system. The online complaint system allows users to register complaints and see its status.

● The trading, export, import, development, multilateral and bilateral relations via way of means of the Special Economic Zone is also sorted by the Department.

Trade facilitation

• A system of online complaint has also been formulated wherein the exporters can file online applications who are seeking to get their issues resolved. The Export Data Processing and Monitoring System has been started by the Reserve Bank of India  to look into the exports.

• The Foreign national trading policy additionally introduced the construct of city of Export Excellence that acknowledges cities that have a production of quite Rs. 750 Crore. These cities have the potential to extend quality exports from the country. These cities that are notified are being supplied with financial backing from the Central Government.

•The policy has also resulted in the formation of a National Committee for Trade Facilitation. This Committee was established in response to India’s signature on the World Trade Organization’s Trade Facilitation Agreement. The Committee is in charge of putting the terms of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement into action.

World Trade Organization

In 2018, the United States filed a complaint against India at the world trade center The criticism become concerning the guidelines which might be selling exports within side the country. The United States claimed that guidelines to sell exports are in opposition to the guidelines of the World Trade Centre. The United States claimed that the export subsidies can not be maintained and is in opposition to the guidelines of WTO. A document become made after analyzing the criticism by the WTO Panel on this
issue which stated that the provisions of Foreign Policy of India which might be promoting export by making use of export subsidiaries are illegal.

The report launched through the WTO panel may affect the export market of India. These promotional export subsidiaries had usually been a stimulant for the exports. The subsidiaries have supported exports by decreasing the price of exports. This may highly effect the diverse exporting sectors, given the modern scenario of the awful monetary fitness of the us of a and uncertainty because of the change struggle fare of America and China.

Ceasing the advancement of trade might lead to deplorable results within the trade and moment showcase of India. Hence, the nation ought to point to define such remote approaches which are congruent with the approaches of the World Exchange Organization. The Government ought to carefully define.

Objectives of the Foreign Trade Policy in India

1. To enable substantial growth in exports from India and import to India to boost the economy.
2. To improve the balance of payment and trade.
3. To increase the technological ability for manufacturing and cost-effectiveness of enterprise and services, thereby enhancing their aggressive electricity in evaluation to different countries, and to motivate the accomplishment of internationally commonplace requirements of quality.
4. Creation of opportunities by engaging in good and ethical practices.
5.  To ensure long-term growth by providing access to critical raw materials, as well as other components, consumables, and capital goods needed to boost production on and deliver efficient services.
6. provide buyers or clients with high-quality goods and services at globally
competitive rates and quality. ‘Canalization’- an important feature of Foreign
Trade Policy under which specific classes of goods can be imported only by
designated agencies.
7. Creation of opportunities by engaging in good and ethical practices.
8. Establishing the Advance Licensing System for foreign products required for producing numerous products for export. associate degree Advance License is issued by the board General of Foreign Trade to permit nontaxable import of inputs, that ar physically integrated with the export product
9. Allow the import of technology and equipment’s which may help in achieving better international standards of quality and reduce the cost of production.
10. Accelerating the economy’s transition from low-  to high-level economic activities by transforming it into a globally focused and thriving economy

Simplification and Merger of Reward Schemes:

1: Merchandise Exports from India Scheme(MEIS)

The earlier 5 schemes for worthwhile products exports with exceptional styles of responsibility script with various conditions (sector precise or real consumer only) connected to their use, namely, Focus Product Scheme, Market Linked Focus Product Scheme, Focus Market Scheme, Agri – Infrastructure Incentive Scrip and VKGUY have now been changed with the aid of using a unmarried scheme referred to as Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS). It is critical to be aware that there could
be no conditionality connected to the scrips issued beneathneath the scheme. For supply of rewards beneathneath MEIS, the international locations had been classified into 3 groups, while the costs of rewards beneathneath MEIS could variety from 2% to 5%. Notified items exported to notified markets could be rewarded on realized FOB price of exports in loose overseas exchange. The debits closer to simple customs responsibility and further responsibility of customs/ excise responsibility/carrier tax could additionally be allowed adjustment as responsibility drawback/CENVAT credit, as in keeping with as per the department of revenue rule.

The basic objective of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) is to offset infrastructural inefficiencies and associated costs involved in export of goods/products, which are produced/manufactured in India, especially those having high export intensity, employment potential and thereby enhancing India’s export competitiveness.

Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS)

Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS) has changed in advance Served from India Scheme (SFIS) and pursuits to inspire export of notified offerings from India. It applies to ‘provider vendors placed in India’ as a substitute of ‘Indian provider vendors’. Service vendors placed in India covers exporters who’re presenting offerings from India, irrespective of the charter or profile. Under the brand new policy, the advantage is likewise prolonged to airport operations and floor dealing with offerings protecting seventy seven offerings. Under SEIS, the chosen offerings might be rewarded on the
fees of 3% on internet forex earned. The fee of praise beneathneath SEIS might be primarily based totally on internet forex earned. The praise issued as responsibility credit score script might be freely transferable and usable for all kinds of items and provider tax debits on procurement of offerings/items. Debits might be eligible for CENVAT credit score or drawback.

Conclusion

With the help of foreign trade policies, a country can lead to equality of pricing to ensure a stable demand and supply situation within the economy. Foreign trade policy also enables a nation to import certain products at the time of a natural calamity and therefore manage scarcity when demand is high by providing better quality and quantity of goods. It also assists in raising the standard of living and making commodities available at a lower cost. Therefore, the Foreign Trade Policy in India is a complete policy to enhance the position of India in the international market and create benefits
for all.

India has also been one of the most sought after foreign investment destinations. The MEIS and SEIS are great initiatives to enhance the export of goods and services and has consolidated the various schemes which existed before.

By Sneha Samarpita

The post Analysis of Foreign Trade policy (2015-2020) appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The procedure of a fresh start is codified in Chapter II of Part III of the code. Individuals and partnership businesses can use the fresh start method to discharge their debts which are comparatively small and restart fresh with no liabilities. This procedure is available as an alternative to insolvency and bankruptcy.

Who can Make an Application for a Fresh Start Process?

According to Section 80, IBC 2016, A debtor who is unable to pay his debts and who fulfills the conditions required given in the act can file an application for a fresh start process. It may be made by a debtor either personally or through a Resolution Professional.

Conditions to be fulfilled by the debtor to make an application for Fresh Start

It is provided under section 80(2), IBC, 2016:-

1. The gross annual income of the debtor does not exceed 60,000 rupees;
2. The aggregate value of the assets of the debtor does not exceed 20,000 rupees;
3. The aggregate value of the qualifying debts does not exceed 35,000 rupees;
4. He is not an undischarged bankrupt;
5. He does not own a dwelling unit, irrespective of whether it is encumbered or not;
6. A fresh start process, insolvency resolution process, or bankruptcy process is not subsisting against him; and
7.  No previous fresh start order under this Chapter II has been made in relation to him in the preceding 12 months of the date of the application for fresh start.

Filing of application for Fresh start Process

If the debtor meets the above-mentioned requirements, he may apply for a fresh start. Now, according to Section 81(3), IBC, 2016, the application for the fresh start process must be completed in the appropriate format and accompanied by the fees set forth in the Code’s attached rules. The application for a fresh start procedure must include the following annexures, which must be accompanied by an affidavit:

1. A list of all debts owed by the debtor as of the date of the said application along with details relating to the amount of each debt, interest payable thereon, and the names of the creditors to whom each debt is owed.
2. The interest payable on the debts and the rate thereof is stipulated in the contract.
3. A list of security held in respect of any of the debts.
4. The financial information of the debtor and his immediate family up to 2 years prior to the date of the application.
5. The particulars of the debtor’s personal details.
6. The reasons for making the application.
7. The particulars of any legal proceedings which, to the debtor’s knowledge have been commenced against him.
8. The confirmation that no previous fresh start orders under the Chapter II have been made in respect of the qualifying debts of the debtor in the preceding 12 months of the date of the application.

Interim Moratorium

• As per Section 80(2), IBC, 2016, an Interim Moratorium is a period in which all legal proceedings are deemed to have been stayed and creditors cannot initiate any legal action or proceeding against such debts.
• The interim Moratorium will start from the date of filing the application for a fresh start and will be applicable till the date of admission or rejection of the application.

Appointment of resolution professional. (Section 82)

An application under section 80 is filed by the debtor through a Resolution Professional, under Section 82(1)

• The Adjudicating Authority shall direct the Board within 7 days of the date of receipt of the application and shall seek confirmation from the Board that there are no disciplinary proceedings against the resolution professional who has submitted such an application.
• The Board shall communicate to the Adjudicating Authority in writing either the confirmation or rejection of the appointment of the resolution professional who filed an application and nominating another resolution professional suitable for the fresh start process.

 An application under section 80 is filed by the debtor himself and not through the Resolution Professional under Section 82(3)

• The Adjudicating Authority shall direct the Board within 7 days of the date of the receipt of an application to nominate a resolution professional for the fresh start process.
• The Board shall nominate a resolution professional within 10 days of receiving the direction issued by the Adjudicating Authority.
• The Adjudicating Authority shall by order appoint the resolution professional recommended or nominated by the Board.
• A resolution professional appointed by the Adjudicating Authority shall be provided a copy of the application for a fresh start.

Examination of application by resolution professional (Section 83)

• The resolution professional shall examine the application within 10 days of his appointment, and submit a report to the Adjudicating Authority, either recommending acceptance or rejection of the application.
• The report shall contain the details of the amounts mentioned in the application which in the opinion of the resolution professional are qualifying debts and liabilities eligible for discharge.
• The resolution professional may call for such further information or explanation in connection with the application as may be required. The debtor or any other person, as the case may be, shall furnish such information or explanation within 7 days of receipt of the request.
• The resolution professional shall presume that the debtor is unable to pay his debts at the date of the application if:
  • In his opinion, the information supplied in the application indicates that the debtor is unable to pay his debts and he has no reason to believe that the information supplied is incorrect or incomplete and
  • He has reason to believe that there is no change in the financial circumstances of the debtor since the date of the application enabling the debtor to pay his debts.

• The resolution professional shall reject the application, if in his opinion:
  • The debtor does not satisfy the conditions specified or
  • The debts disclosed in the application by the debtor are not qualifying debts or
  • The debtor has deliberately made a false representation or omission in the application or with respect to the documents or information submitted.

• The resolution professional shall record the reasons for recommending the acceptance or rejection of the application in the report to the Adjudicating Authority and shall give a copy of the report to the debtor.

Admission or Rejection of the application by Adjudicating Authority

• As per Section 84, IBC, 2016, The Adjudicating Authority may within 14 days from the date of submission of the report by the resolution professional, pass an order to either admit or reject the application.
• The order passed accepting the application shall state the amount which has been accepted as qualifying debts by the resolution professional and other amounts eligible for discharge for the purposes of the fresh start order.
• A copy of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority along with a copy of the application shall be provided to the creditors mentioned in the application within 7 days of the passing of the order.

Effect of admission of application

• As per section 85, IBC, 2016, on the date of admission of the application, the moratorium period shall commence in respect of all the debts.

During the moratorium period

• Any pending legal action or legal proceeding in respect of any debt shall be deemed to have been stayed, and the creditors shall not initiate any legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt.
• Also, During the moratorium period, the debtor shall:
  • Not act as a director of any company, or directly or indirectly take part in or be concerned in the promotion, formation, or management of a company;
  • Not dispose of or alienate any of his assets.
  • Inform his business partners that he is undergoing a fresh start process.
  • Be required to inform prior to entering into any financial or commercial transaction of such value as may be notified by the Central Government, either individually or jointly, that he is undergoing a fresh start process.
  • Disclose the name under which he enters into business transactions if it is different from the name in the application admitted under section 84;
  • Not to travel outside India except with the permission of the Adjudicating Authority.
  • The moratorium ceases to have an effect at the end of the period of 180 days beginning with the date of admission unless the order admitting the application is revoked.

Objections by the creditor and their examination by Resolution Professionals.

• As per Section 86, Any creditor mentioned in the order of the Adjudicating Authority to whom a qualifying debt is owed may, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the order object only on the following grounds,
  • The inclusion of debt as a qualifying debt or
  • The incorrectness of the details of the qualifying debt specified.

• A creditor may file an objection by way of an application to the resolution professional. The resolution professional shall examine the objections and either accept or reject the objections, within 10 days of the date of the application.
• The resolution professional may examine any matter that appears to him to be relevant to the making of a final list of qualifying debts. Once objections are examined the resolution professional shall prepare an amended list of qualifying debts for seeking a discharge order.

Application against decision of Resolution Professional

• As per Section 87, IBC, 2016, The debtor or the creditor who is aggrieved by the action taken by the resolution professional may, within 10 days of such decision, make an application to the Adjudicating Authority challenging such action on any of the following grounds,
  • That the resolution professional has not given an opportunity to the debtor or the creditor to make a representation.
  • That the resolution professional colluded with the other party in arriving at the decision.
  • That the resolution professional has not complied with the requirements of the section.

• The Adjudicating Authority shall decide the application within 14 days of such application, and make an order as it deems fit.

Replacement of Resolution Professional

• As per Section 89, IBC, 2016, where the debtor or the creditor is of the opinion that the resolution professional appointed is required to be replaced, he may apply to the Adjudicating Authority for the replacement of such a resolution professional.
• The Adjudicating Authority shall within 7 days of the receipt of the application make a reference to the Board for replacement of the resolution professional. The Board shall, within 10 days of the receipt of a reference from the Adjudicating Authority, recommend the name of an insolvency professional to the Adjudicating Authority against whom no disciplinary proceedings are pending.
• On being satisfied by the recommendation of the board the adjudicating authority shall appoint the suggested Insolvency professional as resolution professional to continue forward the fresh start process.

Revocation of order admitting the application

• As per Section 91, IBC, 2016, The resolution professional may submit an application to the Adjudicating Authority seeking revocation of its order on the following grounds,
  • If due to any change in the financial circumstances of the debtor, the debtor is ineligible for a fresh start process; or
  • Non-compliance by the debtor with the restrictions imposed off.
  • If the debtor has acted in a mala fide manner and has wilfully failed to comply with the provisions of this Chapter.

• Within 14 days of receiving the application, the Adjudicating Authority may admit or reject the application by order. On the passing of the order admitting the application, the moratorium and the fresh start process shall cease to have an effect.

Discharge order.

• As per Section 92, IBC, 2016, At least 7 days before the moratorium period ends, the resolution professional must compile a final list of qualified debts and submit it to the Adjudicating Authority.
• At the end of the moratorium period, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a discharge order discharging the debtor from the qualifying debts.
• From the date of the application until the date of the discharge order, the Adjudicating Authority shall discharge the debtor from all the penalties, interest including punitive interest, and any other sums owing under any contract in respect of the qualifying debts but not from his pending debts.

The post Fresh Start under IBC appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.