2015 (2) TMI 1375 - HC - Customs

Refusal to consider petitioner's application for issuance of Duty Credit under the DFCE Scheme - refusal on the ground that only on submission of Status House Certificate for the base year 2002-03 is produced - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is to be pointed out that though an opportunity of personal hearing was granted, the impugned order does not reflect as to how and in what manner the public notice No.69/2004-09 dated 07.04.2005 is not applicable to the petitioner and in what way still the petitioner has to satisfy the recognition for the base year. Therefore, the impugned order is passed without sufficient reasons calling for interference of this Court. This court is of the view that the matter should be remanded back for fresh consideration by the respondent duly taking note of the amendment and also after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration who shall hear the petitioner in person and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to refusal of Duty Credit under DFCE Scheme due to base year certificate requirement.

In this case, the petitioner challenged the proceedings dated 27.02.2012, where their application for Duty Credit under the DFCE Scheme was rejected for not submitting the Status House Certificate for the base year 2002-03. The petitioner argued that they were recognized as a Star Export House as of 01.04.2004, and the requirement for the base year certificate was not applicable due to an amendment in the policy. The Grievance Redressal Committee and Commissioner also ruled in favor of the petitioner, but no action was taken until the impugned order in 2012. The Central Government Standing Counsel mentioned that a personal hearing was granted, but the impugned order lacked reasoning on why the 2005 amendment did not apply to the petitioner. The High Court held that the order lacked sufficient reasons and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing and consideration of the amendment. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondent to reconsider the matter within three months.

This judgment primarily dealt with the challenge to the refusal of Duty Credit under the DFCE Scheme based on the requirement of a base year certificate. The petitioner's argument focused on being recognized as a Star Export House as of 01.04.2004, following an amendment in the policy that rendered the base year certificate unnecessary. The court noted the Grievance Redressal Committee and Commissioner's decisions in favor of the petitioner, highlighting the delay in implementing those decisions. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked adequate reasoning on the applicability of the 2005 amendment to the petitioner's case, leading to the order's setting aside. The court emphasized the importance of providing a personal hearing and considering the policy amendment in the fresh consideration by the respondent. The judgment aimed to ensure a fair and reasoned decision-making process in line with the legal provisions and principles governing such matters.