2019 (7) TMI 263 - HC - Customs

Refund of Drawback, Interest on Drawback and Refund of CVD - re-export of goods - HELD THAT - The authority concerned should undertake the necessary process of sanctioning and taking the final decision with regard to the ground of refund of interest on CVD as well as on drawback, at the earliest. The respondent No.3 is directed to complete the process and take an appropriate decision in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. The ultimate decision should be communicated in writing, to the writ-applicant - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of refund of Drawback, Interest on Drawback, and Refund of CVD under re-export.
2. Allegation of discrimination and violation of constitutional rights.
3. Delay in processing refund claims by customs authorities.

Analysis:
1. The writ-application sought relief for the immediate completion of the sanctioning and granting of the refund of interest on CVD and surrendered duty drawback amount. The petitioner claimed denial of refunds despite clear eligibility under Customs Act provisions and government schemes to boost exports. The petitioner highlighted the re-export of a defective tank to Oman and subsequent payment of excise duty, CVD, and surrender of duty drawback under protest. The petitioner emphasized adherence to Notification no 94/96-Cus but alleged non-extension of benefits by assessing groups.

2. The petitioner argued that the denial of refunds, despite clear eligibility, amounted to discrimination and violated their right to fair business practices and constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The petitioner maintained that the re-import and re-export actions were covered under specific customs notifications and reiterated their efforts to claim refunds through multiple communications and submissions of necessary documents. The petitioner emphasized the time-bound nature of refund claims and the necessity for a prompt resolution.

3. The court noted the submissions by both parties, directing the concerned authority to verify and confirm the genuineness of the refund claim and complete the process of sanctioning the refund within four weeks. The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making in refund matters and ordered written communication of the ultimate decision to the writ-applicant. The judgment disposed of the writ-application, permitting direct service and signaling the need for expedited resolution of refund claims to avoid undue delays and ensure procedural fairness.