2018 (4) TMI 1900 - HC - Customs

100% EOU - grant of Private Bonded Warehouse licence - failure go fulfill export obligation - export of buffalo meat and tapioca - HELD THAT - The petitioner is now attempting to put forward a case based on merit. There is no error in the decision making process. All that was canvassed by the petitioner in this writ petition could have been canvassed in the appeal. If the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the petitioner cannot resurrect such ground which could have been canvassed before the appellate authority, by way of a writ petition. Since there is no error in the decision making process, the writ petition is only to be dismissed. The petitioner is permitted to discharge the liability in 12 monthly instalments starting from next month onwards - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of demand notice for violation of export obligation.
2. Renewal of bank guarantee and appeal filed out of time.
3. Consideration of case based on merit in writ petition.
4. Request for instalment facility to discharge liability.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a 100% export-oriented unit, was granted a Letter of Permission (LOP) for processing and export of buffalo meat and tapioca, along with a Private Bonded Warehouse license. Both permissions expired as they were not renewed. The petitioner imported Capital Goods eligible for duty exemption based on export commitment but failed to fulfill the obligation, leading to a notice of demand (Ext.P11) for violation of conditions. The petitioner challenges this demand notice in the writ petition.

2. The duty in question is covered by a bank guarantee provided by the petitioner, which was not renewed. The petitioner's appeal, filed out of time, was unsuccessful as the appellate authority did not consider the issue on merits. The court notes that the petitioner is now attempting to present a case based on merit, arguing that there was no error in the decision-making process. However, the court emphasizes that all arguments raised in the writ petition could have been presented during the appeal process. As the appeal was dismissed due to limitation, the petitioner cannot raise grounds that could have been addressed in the appeal through a writ petition. Consequently, since there is no error in the decision-making process, the writ petition is dismissed.

3. Despite dismissing the writ petition, the court acknowledges the petitioner's request for an instalment facility to discharge the liability. In response to this submission, the court grants permission for the petitioner to settle the liability in 12 monthly instalments starting from the following month. This decision aims to provide the petitioner with a feasible method to fulfill the obligation.

4. Therefore, the court's judgment concludes by dismissing the writ petition while allowing the petitioner to discharge the liability through monthly instalments. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and presenting all relevant arguments during the appropriate stages of legal proceedings.