2024 (11) TMI 414 - HC - Customs

Violation of Export Obligation - Confiscation of imported goods valued u/s 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 - option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine u/s 125 of the Custom Act, 1962 and imposing penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the petitioner - petitioner, a company, was granted an EPCG license in 2013 and imported goods availing customs duty benefits for export obligation compliance HELD THAT - .As against the impugned order, there is effective appeal remedy available to the petitioner under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, before the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai. The petitioner is at liberty to canvass all the grounds raised in this writ petition before the Appellate Authority. The period during which the writ petition was pending before this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation so as to enable the petitioner to prefer appeal before the Appellate Authority.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, EPCG license compliance, show cause notices alleging violations, impugned order confiscating goods, jurisdiction of the court, availability of appeal remedy.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order dated 31.03.2021 and direct respondents not to proceed until the petitioner's application from 25.07.2013 is disposed of. The petitioner, a company, was granted an EPCG license in 2013 and imported goods availing customs duty benefits for export obligation compliance. Despite submitting required documents, show cause notices were issued alleging violations of trade laws. The petitioner responded, denying the allegations and requesting EODC. Subsequently, a show cause notice in 2020 alleged non-fulfillment of export obligation, leading to an impugned order confiscating goods and imposing penalties.

The petitioner argued that the impugned order lacked jurisdiction and sought intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The standing counsel for the first respondent contended that the petitioner had an appeal remedy under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, before the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai. The court noted the availability of an appeal remedy and allowed the petitioner to raise all grounds before the Appellate Authority, with the period of the writ petition pending being excluded for limitation purposes.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating no costs were awarded, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition. The judgment emphasized the availability of an appeal remedy for the petitioner under the relevant trade law, highlighting the importance of exhausting such remedies before seeking judicial intervention.