2021 (5) TMI 876 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - association can file appeal or not - Levy of interest for delayed payment under the DEPB Scheme - difference between the DEEC and DEPB schemes - HELD THAT - In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in MAHINDER KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. 1994 (9) TMI 369 - SUPREME COURT holding the an Association cannot file writ petition seeking relief espousing the cause of its individual members and does not affect any legal right of that Association, it is also not possible to entertain these writ petitions for that reason. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Circular on DEPB Scheme, Levying of interest under Customs Act, Difference between DEEC and DEPB schemes, Judicial divergence on education cess, Referral to Larger Bench, Association's locus standi in filing writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an association, challenged a Circular related to the DEPB Scheme, alleging that interest was being levied under the Customs Act without considering it as an exemption from Customs duty. The Supreme Court's distinction between DEEC and DEPB schemes clarifies that DEPB scrips allow duty payment, not duty exemption. A previous decision upheld interest payment under DEPB Scheme, emphasizing that goods cleared under DEPB are not exempt but duty-paid. Thus, the petitioner's claim was dismissed based on this precedent.

The petitioner argued for a Larger Bench reference due to conflicting views on education cess on Customs duty debited in DEPB licenses. However, the court rejected this request citing that the issue was directly addressed in a previous judgment, unlike the education cess matter. The court highlighted that the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court was not considered in the conflicting decision, leading to the dismissal of the Larger Bench referral request.

Additionally, the court noted that as per a Supreme Court decision, an association cannot file a writ petition on behalf of individual members. Therefore, the court found it untenable to entertain the writ petitions filed by the association. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed without imposing any costs.