2022 (6) TMI 1141 - HC - Customs

Detention of goods - goods proposed to be exported under duty draw back scheme - levy of penalty - HELD THAT - There are no merits in the present writ petition as far as the challenge to the impugned order is concerned as the petitioner has an alternate remedy. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, liberty given to file a statutory appeal before CESTAT, chennai within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Impugned Order-in-Original TUT-CUSTM-PRV-COM-02/2022 dated 31.03.2022. Compliance with court order regarding reclaiming export goods. Failure of respondents to comply with court directions. Imposition of penalty and confiscation of cargo. Availability of alternate remedy before CESTAT, Chennai.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Impugned Order-in-Original TUT-CUSTM-PRV-COM-02/2022 passed by the first respondent. The impugned show cause notice preceded the Order in Original, calling for justification on proposed exports under duty drawback scheme and potential penalties. A previous court order allowed the petitioner to reclaim export goods without the need for a bank guarantee due to canceled export orders. Despite this, the respondents failed to comply, leading the petitioner to file a contempt petition. The respondents were directed to report compliance but failed to do so, resulting in the imposition of penalties and cargo confiscation by the Commissioner. The petitioner sought to quash this order.

The petitioner argued that the respondents did not adhere to the court's directions despite a positive ruling, leading to the filing of a contempt petition. The respondents were directed to comply but failed to do so, resulting in the imposition of penalties and cargo confiscation. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner's order seeking penalties and confiscation based on declared transaction value in shipping bills was unjustified. The petitioner sought the quashing of the impugned order.

The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy before CESTAT, Chennai, making the writ petition baseless. The order directing cargo release was under appeal before the Division Bench. The respondents urged the dismissal of the writ petition with directions to file a statutory appeal before CESTAT, Chennai. The court considered arguments from both sides and found no merit in the writ petition challenging the impugned order, citing the availability of an alternate remedy. The court dismissed the writ petition but granted liberty to file a statutory appeal before CESTAT, Chennai within sixty days.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of an alternate remedy before CESTAT, Chennai. The petitioner was granted sixty days to file a statutory appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.