2005 (3) TMI 170 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Release of pending drawback claim.
2. Prevention of coercive measures for realization of amounts mentioned in notices.
3. Quashing of show cause notice issued by Deputy Commissioner of Customs.
4. Compliance with the final order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Release of Pending Drawback Claim:
The petitioner, a government-recognized export house, sought the release of its pending drawback claim amounting to Rs. 18,96,332 along with interest as prescribed under Section 75-A of the Draw-back Rules, 1995. The petitioner had imported electrical components under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) scheme and claimed duty drawback on brass scrap and other items. Despite the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the drawback claims, the Customs authorities did not release the amount. The High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 22-9-1999 had become final and binding, and thus, the petitioner was entitled to the drawback claim. The court directed the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, ICD, Moradabad, to make the payment within one month from the date a certified copy of the order is filed.

2. Prevention of Coercive Measures for Realization of Amounts Mentioned in Notices:
The petitioner requested the court to direct the respondents not to adopt any coercive measures for the realization of amounts mentioned in the notices dated 28-4-2003. The court did not provide a specific directive regarding coercive measures but emphasized that the Assistant Commissioner should pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. Quashing of Show Cause Notice Issued by Deputy Commissioner of Customs:
The petitioner sought to quash the show cause notice dated 28-4-2003 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The court directed that the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, ICD, Moradabad, should consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within one month from the date a certified copy of the order is filed.

4. Compliance with the Final Order of the Commissioner (Appeals):
The court highlighted the importance of compliance with the final orders of appellate authorities, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., which emphasized that revenue officers are bound by the decisions of appellate authorities. The court reiterated that orders which have not been challenged before a superior court become final and binding between the parties, as established in Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) v. M.M. Krishnamurthy Chetty and V.S. Charati v. Hussain Nhanu Jamadar. The court found the refusal and inaction of the Assistant Commissioner, ICD, Moradabad, to be arbitrary and unjustified, and directed compliance with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 22-9-1999.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was partly allowed. The court directed the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, ICD, Moradabad, to make the payment of the drawback within one month and to pass appropriate orders regarding the show cause notices after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court emphasized the binding nature of the appellate authority's orders and the necessity of compliance to avoid undue harassment and maintain judicial discipline.