2020 (4) TMI 158 - HC - Customs

Return of unutilised MEIS Scrips - allegation that exporters have exported goods which was not permitted in terms of the appropriate orders passed by the competent authority - HELD THAT - The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) have no power to direct recovery of any amount and that even if an appeal is filed, it will not be efficacious. It is submitted that the DGFT has already taken a stand on similar issues and therefore, it is stated that the alternative remedy is not efficacious. When an alternative remedy is provided, the petitioners will have to approach the Appellate Authority and thereafter, if orders are against them, they can definitely approach the next forum. Each case depends upon its own facts. Under such circumstances, we don't think it appropriate to entertain the writ appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to orders passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade regarding MEIS scrips utilization.
2. Jurisdictional error and availability of appellate remedy.
3. Power of Director General of Foreign Trade to direct recovery of amounts.
4. Efficacy of alternative remedy in the case.

Analysis:
1. The appeals in this case stemmed from a common order passed by the Single Judge in relation to challenges against separate orders issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade concerning the utilization of MEIS scrips by exporters. The orders required exporters to return unutilized MEIS scrips or provide evidence of payment equal to the utilized scrip value along with interest to the customs authority.

2. The Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, noted that there was no jurisdictional error and that an appellate remedy was available to the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to approach the Appellate Authority for redressal of their grievances. The counsel for the appellants argued that the DGFT lacked the authority to direct the recovery of amounts and that pursuing an appeal would not be effective due to the DGFT's stance on similar issues. However, the court emphasized the importance of exhausting the available appellate remedy before seeking intervention through writ appeals.

3. The contention raised by the appellants regarding the DGFT's power to order recovery of amounts was considered by the court. The court held that when an alternative remedy is provided, the petitioners must follow the prescribed appellate process. The court emphasized that each case is unique and that the Appellate Authority would consider all contentions raised by the petitioners during the appeal process.

4. Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ appeals by directing the petitioners to file appeals within three weeks, reiterating the importance of utilizing the available appellate remedy before seeking further intervention. The judgment underscored the significance of following the established legal procedures and hierarchy of forums for addressing grievances related to the orders issued by the DGFT.