2020 (4) TMI 157 - HC - Customs

Implementation of order - It is the case of the Petitioner that the implementation of above four orders would result in Petitioner being entitled to the claim of refund - HELD THAT - In spite of Petitioner's repeated requests, the process of implementing these four orders has not even been commenced. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not taken any steps to process the refund applications though the Petitioner has filed those applications on 13 September 2016. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to process the refund applications of the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from today including reassessing of the bills of entry, if required under the law - Petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Challenge of inaction by respondent nos. 2 and 3 in implementing orders dated 29th October, 2009 by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Entitlement of petitioners to a refund of excess duty paid under the Act.
3. Failure of respondent nos. 2 and 3 to process refund applications filed by the petitioner.
4. Direction for processing refund applications and reassessing bills of entry, if required.

The judgment pertains to a petition challenging the inaction of respondent nos. 2 and 3 in implementing four orders dated 29th October, 2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner claimed entitlement to a refund of excess duty paid under the Act as a result of these orders. Despite repeated requests, respondent nos. 2 and 3 had not initiated the process of implementing the orders or processing the refund applications submitted by the petitioner in September 2016. The court directed respondent nos. 2 and 3 to process the refund applications within four weeks from the date of the judgment, including reassessing the bills of entry if necessary under the law. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with this directive.

The primary issue addressed in the judgment was the failure of respondent nos. 2 and 3 to take action on the four orders dated 29th October, 2009 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). These orders were crucial as they determined the petitioner's entitlement to a refund of excess duty paid under the Customs Act, 1962. Despite the petitioner's efforts and requests, respondent nos. 2 and 3 had not commenced the process of implementing these orders, leading to the petitioner seeking judicial intervention to compel action.

The court acknowledged the petitioner's claim for a refund based on the orders issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in 2009. The petitioner had filed refund applications in September 2016, expecting respondent nos. 2 and 3 to process them in accordance with the orders. However, the lack of progress in processing these applications prompted the petitioner to approach the court for relief. The court's intervention was necessary to ensure that the petitioner's rightful claim for a refund was not unjustly delayed or denied due to administrative inaction.

In response to the petitioner's plea, the court issued a directive to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to expedite the processing of the refund applications within a specified timeframe. The court's order mandated the reassessment of bills of entry, if deemed necessary by law, as part of the refund processing. By setting a deadline of four weeks for the completion of these actions, the court aimed to ensure that the petitioner's refund claim was promptly addressed and resolved. This directive provided a clear roadmap for respondent nos. 2 and 3 to follow in fulfilling their obligations towards the petitioner and upholding the principles of administrative justice and efficiency.

← Previous Next →