2018 (2) TMI 750 - HC - Customs

Recovery of differential duty - fulfillment of export obligation - Held that - Admittedly, the petitioner has not replied to the show cause notices issued to them. The redemption certificates, which are required to be submitted by the petitioner, to fulfil the export obligations, has been obtained by the petitioner, only after the first respondent-Original Authority passed the orders-in-original - in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to set aside the orders impugned herein and remand the matters to the first respondent-Original Authority to redo the entire exercise - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original demanding duty payment and interest under Customs Act, 1962; Refund of already remitted amount sought; Delay in filing appeals against orders-in-original; Rejection of appeals by Appellate Authority and Tribunal as time-barred; Request to submit redemption certificates post orders-in-original issuance; Comparison to a similar case decision; Permission to present redemption certificates for reconsideration; Setting aside impugned orders and remanding the matters to the Original Authority for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order-in-original demanding duty payment and interest under the Customs Act, 1962, seeking a refund of the already remitted amount. The petitioner, an Export House, received show cause notices for not fulfilling Export Obligation conditions, leading to differential duty demand. Appeals filed after a delay were rejected by the Appellate Authority and Tribunal as time-barred. The petitioner requested to submit redemption certificates post orders-in-original issuance, citing a similar case decision allowing reconsideration based on new evidence.

The Court noted the petitioner's failure to reply to show cause notices and the delayed acquisition of redemption certificates post orders-in-original issuance. Refusal to condone the appeal delays by the Appellate Authority and Tribunal was highlighted. Referring to a similar case, the Court emphasized the need for substantial justice over technicalities in export obligation fulfillment. The petitioner's request to present redemption certificates for reconsideration was supported by both parties.

In light of the circumstances, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the Original Authority for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file objections and redemption certificates within two weeks for the Original Authority's review. The Original Authority was instructed to pass orders within six weeks thereafter. Both writ petitions were disposed of without costs.