2018 (2) TMI 1079 - HC - Customs

Duty drawback - allegation was that the petitioners have availed excess drawback - opportunity of personal hearing sought by the petitioner - Held that - The powers under the provisions of the Customs Act and the relevant Regulations do not envisage piecemeal hearing to render a decision in a controverted manner. All that this Court can do is to direct the respondent to consider the preliminary issues as first among other issues that the petitioner may raise. For this purpose, the petitioner has to necessarily submit their additional reply on the factual issues to enable the Authority to adjudicate the said show cause notices as a whole. The prayer sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted and that the petitioners should necessarily submit their additional reply to the said show cause notices, touching upon the merits of the matter and thereafter, it is for the respondent to decide the case - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition challenging show cause notices for availing excess drawback - Preliminary issues of time limitation and authority competence - Request for separate order on preliminary issues - Direction for additional reply submission and comprehensive adjudication.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a case where exporters of leather garments and textile products challenged show cause notices alleging excess drawback availed by them. The petitioners contended that the notices were time-barred and issued by an incompetent authority. The Court noted the petitioners' interim reply raising these preliminary issues but highlighted the necessity for a comprehensive reply addressing the merits of the matter. The Court clarified that it cannot direct piecemeal hearing on preliminary issues before factual issues are addressed, as per statutory provisions governing quasi-judicial powers.

The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the need for a case-specific approach on whether preliminary issues should be decided first. It held that the respondent must consider all issues collectively rather than in isolation. The judgment emphasized the importance of submitting a detailed additional reply covering all points and issues on the merits within 30 days. The Court directed the respondent to schedule a fresh personal hearing after receiving the additional reply to comprehensively adjudicate the show cause notices.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petitions but instructed the petitioners to submit a detailed additional reply within the specified timeline. The judgment emphasized that the respondent should decide the preliminary issues alongside other matters, ensuring a comprehensive and lawful decision-making process. The personal hearing originally scheduled for the next day was deferred to await the additional reply as per the Court's directions. No costs were awarded in the case, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed in line with the main judgment.