2002 (7) TMI 106 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of DEPB rates.
2. Delay in customs clearance.
3. Legitimate expectation of the petitioner.
4. Compliance with customs procedures.
5. Jurisdiction and scope of judicial review.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of DEPB Rates:
The petitioner, an exporter of acrylic shawls, claimed the DEPB drawback duty under DEPB Serial No. 40 of product group 89. The goods arrived at the Inland Container Depot on 29th and 31st March 2000. The DEPB rates were lowered from 17% to 9% effective 1st April 2000. The petitioner argued that the consignment should be considered under the old rate since the goods were handed over to customs before the rate change. The court, however, found that the relevant date for determining the applicable DEPB rate was 1st April 2000, as the goods were not recorded in the customs system on 31st March 2000 due to the lack of necessary permissions and system issues.

2. Delay in Customs Clearance:
The petitioner contended that the delay in customs clearance was due to the customs authorities' failure to process the shipping bills promptly. The court noted that the goods arrived late on 31st March 2000 and the necessary package details were not available until 1st April 2000. Since the goods were presented for registration on 1st April 2000, the DEPB rate applicable on that date was correctly applied.

3. Legitimate Expectation of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that there was a legitimate expectation that the old DEPB rates would apply since the goods were handed over to customs before the policy change. The court rejected this argument, stating that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply when the petitioner fails to meet the procedural requirements. The court emphasized that the fulfillment of all conditions, including timely registration and compliance with customs procedures, is necessary for any legitimate expectation to be valid.

4. Compliance with Customs Procedures:
The court highlighted the importance of adhering to customs procedures, including obtaining necessary permissions for clubbing shipping bills and ensuring all package details are available. The court found that the petitioner failed to comply with these procedures, which contributed to the delay in customs processing. The court referred to the procedures outlined in the Public Notice No. 13/1998 and emphasized that the customs authorities acted within their rights by applying the DEPB rate effective on 1st April 2000.

5. Jurisdiction and Scope of Judicial Review:
The court stated that it would not interfere with the findings of fact by the customs authorities unless there was evidence of irrationality or unreasonableness. The court found that the customs authorities' decision was informed by reason and did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The court concluded that the petitioner's writ petition lacked merit and dismissed it without any order as to costs.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the DEPB rate of 9% effective on 1st April 2000 was applicable. The court emphasized the necessity of complying with customs procedures and rejected the petitioner's claims of legitimate expectation and procedural delays caused by customs authorities. The decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in customs matters and the limited scope of judicial review in such cases.