2018 (3) TMI 129 - HC - Customs

Benefit of duty drawback - time limitation - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - case of petitioner is that it was unaware of the fact that it could have availed duty drawback benefits - Held that - Since, the appeal which the petitioner intends to file is beyond the period of 45 days prescribed under Section 15 of the 1992 Act, the Appellate Authority will condone the delay qua the period spent by the petitioner, in this court as well as the period spent before the PRC - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade and decision of Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) regarding duty drawback claim and condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition was filed to challenge the order dated 14.09.2016 by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade and the decision dated 31.5.2016 by the PRC. The order was based on an application dated 18.7.2016, which counsel for the petitioner admitted was wrongly addressed to the Appellate Committee instead of the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The Deputy Director General noted that there was no Appellate Committee in existence, and no fault was found with the order.

2. The decision by the Assistant Development Commissioner denied the duty drawback claimed by the petitioner for a specific period due to being beyond the prescribed limitation. The petitioner also approached the PRC seeking condonation of delay, which was rejected. The petitioner argued that it was unaware of the duty drawback benefits it could have availed, but the PRC did not grant the condonation.

3. The petitioner had set up an Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) Unit in 2007 but restricted the duty drawback claim to a period starting from April 2011. The petitioner decided to withdraw the writ petition and appeal to the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the 1992 Act, despite the appeal being beyond the prescribed 45-day period. The court allowed the withdrawal and stated that the Appellate Authority could condone the delay considering the time spent in court and before the PRC.

4. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's case and disposed of the petition with the liberty to appeal to the Appellate Authority. The judgment focused on procedural aspects, addressing the incorrect addressing of the application, the denial of duty drawback claim, the rejection of condonation of delay, and the petitioner's decision to appeal to the Appellate Authority despite the delay.