2023 (3) TMI 185 - HC - Customs

Demand of Differential Duty - portable emergency lamp, Model PRL 786, imported by the petitioner in the year 2002 - recovery notice and the attachment letter were issued by the second respondent only on 14.02.2020 and immediately after coming to know the same, the petitioner has approached this Court and therefore, there is no delay on his part - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the impugned Order in Original is dated 11.05.2004. The petitioner has filed this writ petition only in the year 2020. Under the impugned Order in Original, the petitioner has been directed to pay the differential duty of Rs.2,22,427/-. Since the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly, this Court is of the considered view that after a lapse of almost sixteen years from the date of the impugned Order in Original, he must be put on terms for quashing the impugned Order in Original dated 11.05.2004 and for reconsideration of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, based on the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the order dated 30.07.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), involving a batch of identical cases. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if such a direction is issued as the respondents will be getting revenue in view of the deposit made by the petitioner pursuant to the directions given by this Court today. This writ petition stands allowed by directing the petitioner to deposit with the first respondent a sum of Rs.2,22,427/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order in Original dated 11.05.2004 demanding payment of differential duty for imported portable emergency lamp, Model PRL 786 in 2002.

Analysis:
1. Grounds of Challenge: The petitioner contested the Order in Original on various grounds. Firstly, they argued that despite initial steps taken in 2006, no further action was pursued by the respondents regarding the differential duty. Secondly, they claimed that the recovery notice and attachment letter were issued in 2020, and the petitioner promptly approached the Court, indicating no delay on their part. Thirdly, the petitioner highlighted that other importers of the same product received benefits, leading to a plea against discrimination. Lastly, the petitioner relied on past judgments to support their case.

2. Counter Affidavit: Respondents 1 and 2 denied the petitioner's contentions, stating that the Order in Original had been duly served, and the petitioner failed to utilize the appeal remedy within the prescribed time. They argued that the writ petition was time-barred and an attempt to delay the recovery process. Respondents reiterated the petitioner's liability to pay the claimed differential duty.

3. Legal Arguments: The petitioner's counsel reiterated their stance, emphasizing the lack of awareness about the 2004 Order in Original. They claimed that despite a recovery notice in 2006, no further action was taken by the respondents. The petitioner alleged non-service of the Order in Original and lack of prior notice. They also pointed out the relief granted to other importers of the same product by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in 2004, seeking equal treatment. The petitioner's counsel cited past court decisions to support their argument against paying the differential duty.

4. Court Decision: The Court acknowledged the 2004 Order in Original and the belated filing of the writ petition in 2020. However, considering the long delay, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit the specified sum within four weeks for quashing the Order in Original. The matter was to be reconsidered by the first respondent based on the petitioner's arguments and the 2004 Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order within eight weeks. The Court opined that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by this direction.

5. Final Judgment: The writ petition was allowed, with the petitioner instructed to deposit the differential duty amount within a specified period. Upon receipt, the 2004 Order in Original would be quashed, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration by the first respondent. The decision was to be made in line with the petitioner's arguments and the 2004 Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order. The connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed with no costs imposed.