2019 (8) TMI 601 - HC - Customs

Refund claim - provisional release of seized imported machinery - prayer to process the refund claim within a time frame - there is no disputation that the order of CESTAT has become final and it has been given legal quietus HELD THAT - Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the second respondent who has to process the refund application has not done so and there has been inaction on the part of the second respondent. Saying so, learned counsel made a simple and innocuous prayer requesting to mandamus the second respondent to consider the refund application dated 05.10.2018 made by the writ petitioner and take a decision on the same within a time frame. In the light of the innocuous prayer and the narrow compass on which this matter now turns, the second respondent is directed to consider the refund application of the writ petitioner being refund application dated 05.10.2018 and pass an order on the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with earlier court orders regarding importation of machinery.
2. Failure of the second respondent to process the refund application.
3. Request for a mandamus to consider the refund application within a specified timeframe.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with Earlier Court Orders
The judgment refers to a previous order of the court in a similar case, emphasizing that the current matter is covered by the earlier order dated 03.07.2019 in the Label Kingdom case. It is noted that the writ petitioner had imported machinery, specifically a printing machine and standard accessories, which led to issues regarding clearance. The court mentions that the machinery was provisionally released in compliance with the terms set forth in the court's order dated 27.08.2003. The proceedings related to the clearance of the machinery were pursued further, resulting in a final order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12.06.2017. The judgment confirms that there is no dispute that the CESTAT's order has attained finality and legal closure.

Issue 2: Failure to Process Refund Application
The writ petitioner filed a refund application dated 05.10.2018, which the second respondent, responsible for processing the application, allegedly failed to act upon. The court acknowledges the inaction on the part of the second respondent and the writ petitioner's plea to mandamus the second respondent to consider the refund application and make a decision within a specified timeframe.

Issue 3: Mandamus for Timely Consideration of Refund Application
Given the narrow scope of the current matter and the straightforward nature of the request, the court directs the second respondent to evaluate the refund application dated 05.10.2018 and issue a decision within four weeks from the receipt of the court's order. The judgment concludes by disposing of the writ petition with the mentioned directions and without imposing any costs on either party.