2012 (11) TMI 649 - HC - Customs

Duty drawback Section 74 of the Customs Act 1962 - challenge to the letter denial process of duty drawback claim - letter was challenged by way of certiorarified mandamus and thereafter the writ petition was amended for the relief of mandamus to direct the respondents to pass a speaking order. - held that - That relief cannot be granted unless and until the petitioner complies with the direction issued in the letter dated 4.10.2005 as the respondents cannot pass a speaking order without relevant records that have to be produced by the petitioner. No mandamus as sought for can be issued in this writ petition except giving liberty to the petitioner to submit the reply with relevant records to the authority and canvass the issue on merits and in accordance with law. The Writ Petition stands disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for duty drawback under Rule 5 of Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules 1995.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing concrete mixers and pumps, filed a claim for duty drawback under Rule 5 of the relevant rules for re-exported goods. The claim was acknowledged but later rejected due to discrepancies, without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The rejection was based on non-compliance with the procedure under Section 74 of the Customs Act 1962 and the relevant rules. The respondent pointed out that the examination report required under Section 74 was not produced, leading to the inability to establish the identity of the exported goods with reference to import documents.

The petitioner challenged the rejection through a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to pass a speaking order. However, the court held that such relief could not be granted without the petitioner complying with the direction in the rejection letter. The court emphasized that the respondents needed relevant records to pass a speaking order, which the petitioner had to produce. Therefore, the court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner to submit a reply with relevant records to the authority to further canvass the issue on merits and in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the court did not grant the mandamus as requested in the writ petition but provided the petitioner with an opportunity to address the issues raised in the rejection letter by submitting relevant records to the authority. The court highlighted the importance of complying with procedural requirements under the Customs Act and relevant rules for processing duty drawback claims.