The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking to quash the order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to issue Electronic Bank Realisation (E-BRC) certificate in their favour in terms of their Letter dated 25.05.2016 vide Reference No.RTW/IDBI/REG/003 as ''Annexure C''.
2. According to the petitioner, they are engaged in export of garments to USA and Europe, since 1994. They hold ''Export House Status'' Certificate issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India and ''Gold Card Status'' Certificate issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India and ''Gold Card Exporter Status'' with the State Bank of India until 2009.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that they were operating their Bank Account with State Bank of India, which provided working capital facility in 2004 to the petitioner. The petitioner had also opened Current Bank Account with the 2nd respondent/IDBI Bank in 2006. The 2nd respondent had sanctioned term loan facility to the petitioner in the year 2009 and the petitioner made payments in time. While so, in 2009, the petitioner had disputes with State Bank of India in respect of foreign currency derivative products. The petitioner made exports and received foreign exchange towards such exports and the foreign exchange so received was credited to account with State Bank of India to fulfill the obligations under respective export contracts. During this period, US Dollar depreciated and State Bank of India was required to protect customers like the petitioner, who had obtained forward contracts to hedge themselves against foreign exchange risk. Therefore, State Bank of India under the derivative contracts was required to make payment of Indian Rupees to compensate for depreciation in US Dollar. When the petitioner pointed out this to State Bank of India, disputes arose between them. State Bank of India was not ready to honour the petitioner's obligations under the derivative contract. On the other hand, it wanted the liability to be converted into a loan payable by the petitioner to the State Bank of India, which was not agreeable to the petitioner, as it had not borrowed any amount from State Bank of India.
4. Thereafter, State Bank of India voluntarily stopped the banking operations of the petitioner from 01.04.2012 to 28.02.2013, due to which the petitioner had to overcome many export obligations. Since it was just and necessary to continue the operations of the Company, in order to protect the livelihood of the workmen employed under them, the petitioner borrowed term loan from IDBI Bank. Accordingly, the operations of the petitioner were carried on through sole proprietary called 'Renaissance Incorporations'. It is the case of the petitioner that Renaissance Incorporations is a part of their Company and was established to facilitate continuing exports and to receive export proceeds of all the exports made by them. Though Renaissance Incorporations had a separate Bank Account with the 2nd respondent and Import Export Code (IEC) to enable it carry on business, all export sales and expenses relevant to exports for that relevant period made by Renaissance Incorporations is accounted in the books of the petitioner.
5. Pursuant thereto, since the Bank Account of the petitioner was frozen by the State Bank of India, export proceeds were received by the petitioner in the Bank account of its sole proprietary 'Renaissance Incorporation'. It is the further case of the petitioner that their Company is eligible for certain benefits from the Ministry of Commerce on account of the exports made and realization of the export proceeds and to avail such benefits, the petitioner is required to produce Electronic Bank Realisation (E-BRC) certificate from the 2nd respondent. E-BRC is a Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner has fulfilled its export obligations and has realised proceeds of exports in the Bank Accounts. Hence, the petitioner applied to the 2nd respondent for issue of E-BRC. The 2nd respondent, by its letters dated 09.08.2016 and 07.09.2016 informed the petitioner that they are unable to issue E-BRC, as Renaissance RTW Asia Private Limited has exported the goods, but the payments have been received by Renaissance Incorporations.
6. The petitioner raised the above dispute to the 3rd respondent/Banking Ombudsman by its letter dated 29.03.2016. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent without granting any opportunity of being heard, rejected the petitioner's application on 05.05.2016, by stating that the IE code of the petitioner and Renaissance Incorporations is different. The petitioner also sought redressal of its grievance with the 1st respondent by letter dated 19.08.2016. However, there is no response to the same. Now, aggrieved by the action of the respondents who have not permitted their Company to adjust the proceeds realised by Renaissance Incorporations against exports made by them and for failure of the 2nd respondent to issue E-BRC, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material documents available on record.
8. The petitioner only seeks issuance of E-BRC by the 2nd respondent Bank. But, the 2nd respondent has rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that though the petitioner has exported goods, the payments have been received by Renaissance Incorporations. The main criteria for issuance of E-BRC is that the petitioner ought to have fulfilled its export obligations and should have realised proceeds of exports in its Bank Account. In the case on hand, since the petitioner had disputes with its Banker, viz. the 1st respondent/State Bank of India, the Bank freezed the petitioner's Accounts. Ultimately, the realized proceeds of the petitioner's exports were credited to the account of its sister concern, i.e. Renaissance Incorporations.
9. Undoubtedly, issuance of E-BRC is the discretion of the 2nd respondent Bank, for which the petitioner Company has to satisfy the Bank as well as the authority concerned that the export obligation is guaranteed, as the exporter gets lots of benefits under the export obligations through the Government. It is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to prove that the realised export proceeds of their Company is credited to their account with the 2nd respondent Bank. But, the fact remains that the realized export proceeds were credited to the account of the petitioner's sister concern. Such being the situation, the petitioner cannot as a matter of right ask for a direction to the 2nd respondent Bank to issue E-BRC. Had the petitioner completed its export obligations perfectly by crediting all the realized export proceeds in its Company Accounts, certainly, it has got a say. In the absence of it, the 3rd respondent/Banking Ombudsman has rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the IE Code of the petitioner Company and that of Renaissance Incorporations, is different. It is also seen that as per the Regulations, one Company's remittance cannot be adjusted against another Company.
10. In such view of the petitioner, this Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent. The Writ Petition at this stage is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in respect of his grievance. No costs.