2017 (8) TMI 1473 - HC - Customs

Adjournment of the adjudication of the SCN - Failure of fulfill the export obligations - Held that - Any endorsement made by an employee of the petitioner, while seeking for an adjournment of the adjudication of the show cause notice, cannot forfeit the right of the petitioner to plead for extension of time - in all fairness, the second respondent should consider the petitioner s request for extension made vide various representations - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash a communication from the third respondent.
2. Failure to fulfill export obligations within the permitted time frame.
3. Request for extension of time to fulfill export obligations.
4. Consideration of representations made by the petitioner.
5. Directive to the second respondent to examine the bonafides of the representations and pass a speaking order within a specified timeframe.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge a communication from the third respondent directing them to regularize imports to Customs as per HBP 2015-2020. The petitioner admitted failure to meet export obligations by the specified date and made representations to the respondents. The sufficiency of reasons for non-compliance was to be determined by the second respondent, not the Court.

2. Representations dated 11.06.2014, 08.10.2014, 05.01.2015, 18.05.2017, and 27.07.2017 were made by the petitioner. The reasons for non-fulfillment of export obligations were elaborated in the representations dated 18.05.2017 and 22.05.2017. The petitioner emphasized that they could fulfill obligations if granted more time due to circumstances beyond their control.

3. The petitioner's manager, in a representation dated 22.05.2017, indicated that duty would be paid within 90 days, under the Officer's direction. The Court held that this endorsement did not forfeit the petitioner's right to request an extension. The second respondent was directed to consider the extension request, examine the bonafides of the representations, and issue a speaking order within two months to avoid coercive action against the petitioner.

4. The Court accepted the petitioner's plea for extension, emphasizing that an employee's endorsement seeking an adjournment should not hinder the petitioner's right to seek an extension. The second respondent was instructed to evaluate the extension request and issue a reasoned order within two months to prevent coercive measures against the petitioner.

5. The judgment concluded by directing the second respondent to review the petitioner's representation, dated 22.05.2017, for an extension of time, assess the bonafides of the representations, and issue a detailed order within two months. No coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until the second respondent's decision. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs incurred, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.