2020 (3) TMI 275 - HC - Customs

Recovery of Duty Drawback - Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Show Cause Notice was adjudicated upon by the concerned authorities and Order-In-Original has already been passed by the respondent authorities dated 21st March, 2018. It appears that no proof of receipt of said proceeds have ever been supplied by this petitioner to the respondents and hence, the liability has been imposed vide Order-In-Original by this petitioner fixed at ₹1,21,45,524/- and a penalty of ₹1,00,000/- each, upon each petitioner. It appears that Order-In-Original is an appealable order before the CESTAT. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition as the Order-In-Original is an appealable order. As and when the appeal is preferred, the same will be decided by the appropriate forum in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policy applicable to the facts of the present case and without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in the present order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of proceedings initiated under show cause notice
2. Restraining imposition, collection, and recovery of alleged Drawback
3. Seeking appropriate writs, orders, or directions

Issue 1: Quashing of proceedings initiated under show cause notice
The petition sought a writ to quash the proceedings initiated by the customs authorities under a show cause notice. The notice was issued on January 31, 2017, for the recovery of duty drawback amounting to &8377;1,21,45,524. The petitioner had not received the sale proceeds after benefiting from the duty drawback, leading to the recovery action.

Issue 2: Restraining imposition, collection, and recovery of alleged Drawback
Additionally, the petition requested a writ of prohibition to restrain the authorities from imposing, collecting, and recovering the alleged drawback confirmed in the order dated March 21, 2018. The order fixed the liability at &8377;1,21,45,524 and imposed a penalty of &8377;1,00,000 on each petitioner. The authorities adjudicated the show cause notice and passed the Order-In-Original, emphasizing the lack of proof of receipt of the sale proceeds by the petitioner.

Issue 3: Seeking appropriate writs, orders, or directions
The court noted that the Order-In-Original was appealable before the CESTAT, making it unnecessary to entertain the writ petition. The judgment highlighted that the appeal process should be followed, and the appropriate forum would decide the matter based on applicable laws, rules, and regulations without being influenced by the court's observations. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the petition, the actions taken by the authorities, and the court's decision based on the appealable nature of the Order-In-Original.