2023 (2) TMI 286 - HC - Customs

Rejection of petitioner's request for claiming duty drawback - rejection on the ground that the petitioner has not satisfactorily established the reasons for delay in filing the duty drawback claim - Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 - non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents cannot rely upon the documents filed along with these writ petitions, that too, when the first respondent has not considered the same on merits in the impugned orders, which is a cryptic and a non-speaking order. Any improvement of the impugned order cannot be made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents before this Court is rejected. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has satisfied all the statutory requirements for claiming duty drawback as per the provisions under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. When the petitioner has given detailed reasons as to why they were unable to file the duty drawback claim within the prescribed time, the first respondent ought to have considered the said reasons objectively, but as seen from the impugned orders, no reasons have been given for rejecting the petitioner s reasons for non filing of the duty drawback claim on time - Being a cryptic and a non-speaking order, the impugned orders will have to be necessarily quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The first respondent shall pass final orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner in his written submissions dated 03.11.2022 and after affording one personal hearing to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned orders rejecting duty drawback claim under Rule 7A of Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The writ petitions challenged impugned orders rejecting duty drawback claim under Rule 7A of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner imported accessories for mobile phones from China, re-exported the leftover accessories, and claimed duty drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner failed to file the duty drawback claim within the stipulated period under Rule 5 of the Re-export of Imported Goods Rules, 1995. The petitioner sought relaxation under Rule 7A due to unavoidable circumstances causing delay. The first respondent rejected the relaxation petition, stating unsatisfactory reasons for the delay. The petitioner argued that they disclosed unavoidable circumstances, including premises shifting and personnel resignation, but the first respondent passed a non-speaking order. The petitioner relied on various legal precedents to support their entitlement to relaxation under Rule 7A.

The court noted that the petitioner fulfilled all statutory requirements for claiming duty drawback under Section 74. The first respondent failed to consider the reasons for the delay objectively, resulting in a cryptic and non-speaking order. The court held that the impugned orders lacked reasoning for rejecting the petitioner's explanations for the delay. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration within eight weeks. The first respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's submissions and provide a personal hearing before passing final orders.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petitions without costs and closed connected miscellaneous petitions. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering explanations for delays in filing duty drawback claims and ensuring reasoned decisions in accordance with the law.