2019 (3) TMI 1103 - HC - Customs

Validity of detention order and attachment order - case of petitioner is that on the date of passing impugned orders by the 2nd respondent, the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate was not available with him and it was before the 1st respondent, and therefore the matter should be reconsidered - Held that - Considering the fact that the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate, dated 9-3-2009, was not available with the petitioner before the impugned orders and since the same has not been produced by the petitioner, the impugned orders came to be passed and now the petitioner is ready to produce the said certificate before the 2nd respondent, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the the matter is remanded to the file of the 2nd respondent - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-production of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate leading to imposition of duty and detention orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacturing of Cotton Yarn and Grey Fabrics, exported materials through Port and Air Cargo under an advance license obtained from the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to submit the discharge obligation certificate or pay duty with interest due to non-production of the certificate. The petitioner, in response, explained that the certificate was with the 1st respondent and not available at the time of the 2nd respondent's order. The petitioner later obtained the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate dated 9-3-2009 and requested to set aside the impugned orders. The Court noted that the certificate was not available before the impugned orders, and since it was now ready to be produced, the Court set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration based on the new certificate.

The Court considered the petitioner's argument that the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate was not in its possession when the impugned orders were passed by the 2nd respondent, leading to the imposition of duty and detention orders. The petitioner's readiness to produce the certificate dated 9-3-2009 for reconsideration was a crucial factor in the Court's decision to set aside the orders and remand the matter. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to review the new certificate, provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass fresh orders within six weeks from the date of the Court's order. The Court's decision was based on the principle of fairness and the petitioner's subsequent acquisition of the necessary document to comply with the obligations.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration based on the newly obtained Export Obligation Discharge Certificate. The Court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present the certificate and be heard before a fresh decision is made. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the Court's decision.