1993 (2) TMI 112 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-fulfillment of export obligations under an advance license.
2. Allegations of duty and interest levied on the petitioner.
3. Delay in allowing duty drawback claims by Customs Authorities.
4. Jurisdictional issues regarding the order passed by the Customs Authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner was granted an advance license for importing handbag fittings, with an obligation to export a certain quantity of leather handbags. The petitioner faced a notice for non-fulfillment of export obligations, despite submitting relevant documents and proofs. The petitioner argued that the initial notice was seemingly resolved, but a second notice was issued two years later, demanding payment for alleged non-compliance. The petitioner contended that the extended limitation period did not apply as there was no willful misstatement. The Customs Authorities were aware of the exports, as evidenced by the DEEC Book, raising questions on the necessity of the second show cause notice.

2. The Court scrutinized the issuance of the second show cause notice, emphasizing the lack of explanation from the Customs Department for the delay and necessity of a fresh notice. The Revenue Authorities were criticized for issuing a notice without new facts, almost two years after the initial notice, and failing to provide a valid reason for the second notice. The Court highlighted the irregularity of the second notice, striking it down and quashing the order based on it.

3. The petitioner also raised concerns about duty drawback claims not being processed timely by Customs Authorities. Despite multiple submissions, the claims were not approved within the stipulated period, leading to further complications for the petitioner. The Court directed the Department to release the outstanding claims to the petitioner, considering the unjust delay in processing the duty drawback claims.

4. In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring the second show cause notice and the subsequent order as invalid due to procedural irregularities. The Department was instructed not to withhold any payments owed to the petitioner based on the quashed order. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for all parties to abide by the judgment.