2010 (1) TMI 15 - HC - Customs

Suspension of processing of claim of duty drawback claim - The respondent had kept the said drawback claim in abeyance without processing the same on the grounds that the department had received a letter from the Directorate General of the Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Chennai stating that the petitioner had effected fictitious exports and had fraudulently claimed duty drawback running into crores of rupees held that - When an appeal remedy is statutorily provided, it is the obligation on the part of the petitioner to prefer such an appeal, before approaching this court. Though the respondent has indicated in his order itself that an appeal would lie against the order impugned, without exhausting the appeal remedy, the petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings before this court. Therefore, when an alternative remedy is effectively and efficaciously available to the petitioner, it is appropriate for them to exhaust such remedy as provided under the Rules petition dismissed with direction.

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension of drawback claims by Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
2. Allegations of malpractices and fictitious exports by Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence.
3. Petitioner's challenge to the suspension order and request for processing of drawback claims.
4. Respondent's justification for keeping drawback claims pending.
5. Examination of the legal remedies available to the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns the suspension of drawback claims by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs based on allegations of malpractices by the petitioner. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in exporting Stainless Steel articles, filed 7 Shipping Bills for drawback claims amounting to Rs. 9,86,263. The respondent suspended these claims pending investigation by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) due to suspicions of fictitious exports and fraudulent claims.

2. The respondent, in a counter affidavit, explained that malpractice cases were under investigation by the DGCEI, which had directed the suspension of drawback claims for several exporters, including the petitioner. The respondent highlighted cases of fictitious exports and fraudulent claims by other entities related to the petitioner, emphasizing the need to safeguard revenue. The petitioner argued that the investigations were unrelated to their claims, seeking the processing and sanction of the drawback amount.

3. The court considered both parties' arguments and observed that the petitioner must exhaust the statutory appeal remedy before approaching the court. The court emphasized that the appellate authority should review the petitioner's claim, especially regarding the submission of Bank Realization Certificates for the Shipping Bills. The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks, allowing the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal within six weeks.

4. The judgment underscores the importance of following the legal process and exhausting available remedies before seeking court intervention. It clarifies that the appellate authority is the appropriate forum to address the petitioner's grievances regarding the suspension of drawback claims. By directing the petitioner to pursue the appeal process, the court upholds the principles of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory procedures in customs matters.

5. Ultimately, the court's decision to dispose of the writ petition with directions for the petitioner to appeal to the appropriate authority reflects a commitment to legal procedures and the rule of law in resolving disputes related to customs and excise matters. The judgment ensures that the petitioner's concerns are addressed through the established appellate mechanism, promoting transparency and accountability in customs-related issues.