2017 (11) TMI 1535 - HC - Customs

CFS - reopening of earlier proceedings - refund of excess cost recovery charges - Held that - decision of the Hon ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vijal Marine Services V. Commissioner of Customs & C. Ex., Goa, 2016 (3) TMI 939 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT referred, wherein the appellant sought for refund of the cost recovery charges paid under protest to the Customs authorities, the Division Bench held that since the appellant therein did not file any appeals against the demands confirmed for the charges/cost, the appellant cannot be allowed to circumvent confirmed demand by way of refund - this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in issuing a writ of mandamus as sought for by the petitioner - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction for refund of excess cost recovery charges.
2. Consideration of representation by the 1st respondent.
3. Validity of seeking a second writ of mandamus.
4. Reopening of earlier proceedings.
5. Exercise of discretion in issuing a writ of mandamus.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a direction for the refund of excess cost recovery charges paid to the 1st respondent, a container freight station. The petitioner had previously filed a representation for waiver of these charges, which was partially granted with a condition to pay charges up to a certain date. The petitioner complied with this condition, but later filed a new representation claiming a different excess amount. The court noted that the representation was similar to the earlier one and since orders had already been passed on the previous representation, issuing a second writ of mandamus was not justified.

2. Referring to a decision of the Bombay High Court, the court highlighted that seeking a refund without challenging the demands confirmed for the charges could not be allowed. The court observed that the present writ petition seemed to aim at reopening earlier proceedings, and it was not inclined to issue a writ of mandamus in this case. However, the petitioner was allowed to pursue their representation before the 1st respondent for a decision.

3. The court emphasized that the petitioner's attempt to reopen the proceedings did not warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The decision was based on the principle that the representation submitted by the petitioner had already been considered and orders passed, making a second direction unnecessary. The court clarified that the petitioner could continue pursuing their representation with the 1st respondent for a decision.

4. In conclusion, the court disposed of the Writ Petition without imposing any costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the decisions made on previous representations and the need for petitioners to follow the appropriate procedures for seeking relief. The court's decision aimed to maintain the integrity of the legal process while allowing the petitioner to continue their pursuit for a refund through the proper channels.