2014 (7) TMI 731 - HC - Customs

Claim of duty drawback - condonation of delay in filing of supplementary claim - Rule 15 of the Custom, Excise Duties and Service Tax (drawback) Rules, 1995 - Held that - the status of the drawback claim whether signed or under any query/deficiency, is always available in the EDI System and can be ascertained by the exporter or their authorized person from the counter at the service center. It further goes on to say that the designated bank also credits the drawback amount in the account of the exporter on the next day and informs the exporter by sending a fortnightly statement about the payment of drawback claims to them. Therefore, the onus of ascertaining the status of the drawback claim, whether sanctioned short or under any query/deficiency, so as to avoid any delay in filing the subsequent supplementary drawback claims, solely lies on the exporter himself. The bank is an agent of the petitioner and if the bank is at fault and no evidence has been brought on record by way of representation or otherwise to the Bank, then the respondents cannot be faulted with. The second ground is also of no substance for the reason that on one hand, the petitioner says that they were busy in various International Trade Fairs and obviously in so far as the present claim is concerned, it appears that they were not bothered at all or interested in obtaining the benefit which was due to them and for the lapses on the part of the petitioner itself, no one else can be blamed about it. The expression sufficient cause employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate. There was no reasonable cause which could justify condoning the delay and the reasons, which have been made out, have been found to be unjust and improper. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order dated 15/12/2009 by the Joint Commissioner, Ministry of Finance.
2. Validity of the order dated 26/09/2012 rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing supplementary drawback claims.
3. Justifiability of the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay in filing supplementary drawback claims.
4. Timeliness and maintainability of the writ petition filed on 22/03/2013.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the order dated 15/12/2009 by the Joint Commissioner, Ministry of Finance:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 15/12/2009, passed by the Joint Commissioner, who, as the Revisional Authority, upheld the decision of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner (drawback) denying the duty drawback claims on eleven shipping bills due to the claims being time-barred. The Revisional Authority found that the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay were not justifiable and upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision.

2. Validity of the order dated 26/09/2012 rejecting the application for condonation of delay:
The petitioner also contested the order dated 26/09/2012, where the Revisional Authority dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing supplementary drawback claims. The Revisional Authority did not accept the petitioner's contention that there were mistakes in the initial decision and maintained that the delay was not excusable.

3. Justifiability of the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay:
The petitioner argued that the delay was due to (i) late receipt of the bank statement, and (ii) the engagement of the partners in international trade fairs. However, the Revisional Authority and the court found these reasons insufficient. The court noted that guidelines and public notices were in place, advising exporters to regularly check the status of their drawback claims through the EDI System and that the bank promptly credits the drawback amount and sends fortnightly statements. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to provide evidence supporting their claims of delay caused by the bank or other reasons.

4. Timeliness and maintainability of the writ petition filed on 22/03/2013:
The court observed that the petitioner filed the writ petition on 22/03/2013, more than four years after the Revisional Authority's order dated 15/12/2009. The court was not convinced by the petitioner's argument that they were pursuing a review/representation before the Revisional Authority and waiting for its outcome. The court emphasized that the petitioner did not act with reasonable diligence and failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay, rendering the writ petition not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no apparent error, illegality, or perversity in the orders impugned. The reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay were deemed unjust and improper, and the petitioner's lack of timely action further weakened their case. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed in limine.