1998 (4) TMI 145 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of cash compensatory support claim as time-barred.
2. Applicability of the Handbook of Import-Export Procedure 1984-85.
3. Validity of confidential circulars issued by the Department.
4. Interpretation of statutory provisions and procedural requirements.

Summary:

1. Rejection of Cash Compensatory Support Claim as Time-Barred:
The writ petitioner, a manufacturer of motor vehicle chassis and spare parts, exported goods to Nepal and applied for cash compensatory support on 22-10-1986. The first respondent rejected the claim on 11-11-1986, stating it was time-barred as it was not made within six months from the date of export. Subsequent appeals to the second and third respondents were also rejected. The petitioner argued that there was no six-month limitation period in the Handbook of Import-Export Procedure 1984-85 and that the delay was properly explained.

2. Applicability of the Handbook of Import-Export Procedure 1984-85:
The petitioner contended that the Handbook allowed applications to be received up to 24 months from the date of shipment, subject to a 15% reduction in entitlement. The respondents argued that the limitation period was 24 months for applications with all prescribed documents and six months for applications with attested copies due to loss of originals. The court found that the Handbook did not specify a six-month limitation for applications with attested copies and that the petitioner's delay was justified.

3. Validity of Confidential Circulars Issued by the Department:
The petitioner argued that the circulars relied upon by the Department were marked 'Confidential' and were not made available to the petitioner or the public. The court held that confidential circulars could not be used against the petitioner, who was unaware of them. The court emphasized that the purpose of requiring original documents or attested copies was to prevent double payment of cash compensatory allowance, which could be verified by the Department.

4. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Procedural Requirements:
The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions and legal texts on statutory interpretation, emphasizing that procedural technicalities should not override substantive rights. The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's claim on the ground of limitation was unjust and that the petitioner had produced the best available evidence to substantiate the claim. The court also noted that the Department's reliance on technicalities was contrary to the principles of justice and reasonableness.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders of the respondents and directing them to grant the cash compensatory support to the petitioner. The court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not deprive the petitioner of its rightful claim and that the Department's actions must be reasonable and in the public interest. The Rule Nisi was made absolute, with no order as to costs.