2024 (4) TMI 48 - HC - Customs

Seeking defreezing of petitioner s bank account - export under Duty Drawback Scheme under Section 75 of Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - The petitioner is entitled to duty drawback to the tune of Rs. 4, 97, 202/- in respect of the aforesaid shipping bills corresponding to the exported goods to the value of Rs. 66, 11, 867/-. However at the time of consideration the petitioner was not in a position to submit a statement of bank realization. The claim of the petitioner was also rejected on the ground that he had not produced the bank realization certificate. Now the petitioner is before this Court. In the type set the petitioner has enclosed the bank realization statement. This Court is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be remitted back for reconsideration. The petitioner is directed to submit the bank realization statement to the respondents and the respondents shall consider the same and pass orders without insisting on limitation. Hence the impugned orders are set aside. The respondents shall also grant personal hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include duty drawback claim under the Customs Act, 1962, rejection of claim due to lack of bank realization certificate, and the petitioner's request for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order and direct the defreezing of the petitioner's bank account.

Duty Drawback Claim:
The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in exporting garments, exported goods under the Duty Drawback Scheme as per Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner claimed duty drawback on imported materials used for manufacturing the exported goods. The duty drawback amount claimed was Rs. 4,97,202/- for goods worth Rs. 66,11,867/- exported between April 2013 to March 2014.

Rejection of Claim:
The petitioner's duty drawback claim was rejected by the authorities for not submitting a bank realization statement along with the claim. The petitioner, in the writ petition, submitted the bank realization statement and requested the court to quash the impugned order dated 22-9-2020 and direct the defreezing of the petitioner's bank account.

Court's Decision:
The High Court of Madras directed the matter to be remitted back for reconsideration. The petitioner was instructed to submit the bank realization statement to the respondents for consideration without any limitation. The court set aside the impugned orders, granting the petitioner a personal hearing. The respondents were directed to complete the reconsideration process within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order. The writ petition was allowed with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.