2012 (11) TMI 828 - HC - Customs

Writ Appeal - conversion from DEPB scheme to Duty drawback scheme - appellant/petitioner is an exporter of coir products and originally he sought to have the benefit under the DEPB scheme - earlier HC in a writ petition of the petitioner 2012 (9) TMI 347 - KERALA HIGH COURT directed the department to consider the claim - Pursuant to the said verdict, the matter was considered by the competent authority, who passed order dated 20-9-2011 whereby the claim was rejected Held that - there was no declaration that the writ petitioner was entitled to have the benefit though such a relief was prayed for in the said Writ Petition. According to the respondents, the writ petitioner is not entitled to have the benefit as sought for, which resulted in Ext. P7 order. If the writ petitioner/appellant is aggrieved of the said order, it is open to the party to have it challenged by way of availing the statutory remedy by way of appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether the verdict relegating the appellant to avail the statutory remedy is correct or not.

Analysis:
The appellant, an exporter of coir products, initially sought benefits under the DEPB scheme but later realized that the Duties Drawback Scheme would be more advantageous. The appellant approached the Court through a Writ Petition, which was disposed of with a direction to consider the claim under Rule 12 of the Duty Drawback Rules. Subsequently, the competent authority rejected the claim, leading to a second Writ Petition. The appellant argued that since the issue was covered by the earlier judgment, there was no need to pursue an alternative remedy. However, the Single Judge noted that the previous judgment did not declare the appellant's entitlement to the benefit but only directed the claim consideration under Rule 12. The Single Judge emphasized that the appellant could challenge the rejection through further appeal, rendering the Writ Petition under Article 226 unnecessary. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, prompting the current Writ Appeal.

Upon review, the High Court found that the earlier judgment did not provide a positive direction declaring the appellant's entitlement to the benefit under Rule 12 of the Duty Drawback Rules. The respondents contended that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit sought, leading to the rejection order. The High Court emphasized that the appellant could challenge the order through the statutory appeal process under Section 129A of the Customs Act. The Court concluded that there was no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the proceedings, and the Single Judge's judgment was deemed sound and not challengeable.

In response to the appellant's request for time to file an appeal, the Court highlighted the provision for condoning delays under the Statute. The respondents clarified that the appellant could file an appeal with a petition to condone the delay. Ultimately, the Court declined interference, dismissing the Writ Appeal without prejudice to the appellant's right to pursue the statutory remedy.