2023 (8) TMI 134 - HC - Customs

Seeking Direction to short close the Bulk Bills of Entry by foreclosing the said Bills of Entry in respect of quantities of goods and materials not cleared under the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) and lying as unutilised balance - seeking refund of unutilised balance amount deposited by the petitioner - HELD THAT - On going through the facts, vis-a-vis the stand of the respondents, it transpires that the glitch in the way of consideration of petitioner's request for short closing the Bulk Bills of Entry and issuance of necessary certificate about uncleared quantities is procedural. The respondents have been insisting that the petitioner should follow certain procedures before its claim could be considered. It would be proper to require the petitioner to make an application before the competent authority of the respondents by making request regarding the prayers made in this petition - grievance of the petitioner shall be looked into by the competent authority of the respondents on merits. It would be open for the petitioner to submit to the satisfaction of the competent authority the procedural formalities, if so required in law by the authorities. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include a petition for direction to close Bulk Bills of Entry, certification of uncleared quantities, refund of custom duty, compliance with GST regime, procedural requirements for refund claim, and the petitioner's request for short closure of Bills of Entry.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Direction to Close Bulk Bills of Entry
The petitioner sought direction to close Bulk Bills of Entry for quantities of goods not cleared under the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). The Bills of Entry in question were filed between 2012-2017 for various chemical products. The introduction of GST in 2017 changed the duty payment requirements for goods moving from SEZ Units to DTA. The petitioner requested certification of uncleared quantities and refund of excess custom duty deposited. The Specified Officer of SEZ refused the request for short closure, leading to the petition being filed.

Issue 2: Procedural Requirements for Refund Claim
The respondents contended that the petitioner needed to follow specific procedures for refund claims as per Special Economic Zone Rules and Circulars issued by the competent authority. The petitioner was asked to submit various details and amendments as required by Customs regulations. The respondents emphasized the need for compliance with the SOP outlined in the Circular dated 31.03.2017 for filing refund applications.

Issue 3: Compliance with Procedural Formalities
The petitioner argued that the necessary certification for short closure was not provided by the competent authority. It was asserted that short closure of Bulk Bills of Entry did not require an amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act. The petitioner maintained that the foreclosure process was distinct and necessitated a formal order from the Specified Officer. The petitioner's contention was that the procedural requirements for short closure were different from those for amendments.

Final Judgment:
The court acknowledged the procedural discrepancies in considering the petitioner's request for short closing the Bulk Bills of Entry. It directed the petitioner to make a fresh application to the competent authority of the respondents within three weeks. The competent authority was instructed to decide on the application within three weeks of receipt, ensuring compliance with the law. The petition was disposed of based on these terms, allowing for further review and resolution by the competent authority.