1999 (8) TMI 98 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the rejection of the petitioner's claim for a drawback of customs duty.
2. Whether the delay in re-exporting the equipment was beyond the petitioner's control.
3. Availability and exhaustion of appellate and revisionary remedies.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the rejection of the petitioner's claim for a drawback of customs duty.

The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to quash the order dated 12-10-1991, which rejected their claim for a drawback of Rs. 4,39,360.56. The petitioner argued that the order was violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary, illegal, and capricious, as it did not disclose any reason except the Ministry's rejection for the delay in re-export. The petitioner contended that the discretion under the proviso to Section 74 of the Customs Act should not be whimsical or arbitrary. The court noted that the claim for a drawback of 98% of the customs duty paid should have been made within two years from the date of payment of duty on the importation of the goods. The court found that the petitioner failed to make the claim within this period and that the delay was not due to factors beyond the petitioner's control. Therefore, the rejection of the claim by the respondents was upheld as they acted within their discretionary power.

Issue 2: Whether the delay in re-exporting the equipment was beyond the petitioner's control.

The petitioner argued that the delay in re-exporting the equipment was due to factors beyond their control. They provided exhaustive reasons, including the failure of the equipment to perform and the subsequent attempts to make it operational. However, the court found that even in January 1986, the manufacturer, TOCCO, had offered to take back the equipment and pay the cost, but the petitioner chose to try to make the equipment operational. The court noted that the petitioner was aware of the equipment's issues by February 1986 but still opted to put it into operation. The court concluded that the delay was within the petitioner's control and there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

Issue 3: Availability and exhaustion of appellate and revisionary remedies.

The respondents argued that the petitioner had not exhausted the available appellate and revisionary remedies before approaching the court. The court agreed, noting that the impugned order itself mentioned the availability of an appeal to the Appellate Collector of Customs within three months. The court found merit in the respondents' contention that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory remedies before filing the writ petition. The petitioner's argument that no useful purpose would be served by filing an appeal was not accepted.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to make out a case in their favor. The court upheld the respondents' decision to reject the claim for a drawback of customs duty due to the delay in re-exporting the equipment and emphasized the importance of exhausting available statutory remedies. The writ petition was dismissed for want of merits, with no order as to costs.