2019 (3) TMI 355 - HC - Customs

Principles of natural justice - detention of goods - non-fulfillment of export obligation - petitioner s case is that no notice was served on the petitioner and the copy of the Order-in-Original was not received by them - Held that - It may not be necessary for this Court to examine the correctness of the stand taken by the petitioner as to whether they have received the Order-in-Original and whether they were put on notice prior to initiation of adjudication proceeding on account of subsequent events - On account of the fact that if the petitioner is discharging the export obligation, then the very fact will stand effaced. However, the Representations sent by the petitioner to be verified by the respondent - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to detention notices for non-fulfillment of export obligation under EPCG License.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested detention notices demanding payment of duty due to unmet export obligations under Order-in-Original Nos. 15686 & 15641. The petitioner claimed non-receipt of notice and original order, but the respondent stated dispatch of the order. However, subsequent events revealed the petitioner received a discharge certificate for fulfilling export obligations under EPCG License No. 3230001332. This certificate was issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Coimbatore, on 12-6-2012. The petitioner notified the respondent through representations dated 2-7-2013 and 24-7-2013, urging to drop the proposal. The petitioner's discharge of export obligation, as evidenced by the certificate and representations, should nullify the detention notices, subject to verification by the respondent.

The High Court found it unnecessary to delve into the dispute over receipt of the original order due to subsequent developments. Given the issuance of the discharge certificate and the petitioner's communication with the respondent, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention notices, and remanded the matters to the respondent for consideration based on the petitioner's representations. The petitioner was instructed to provide the respondent with a copy of the discharge certificate and representations for compliance. The Court emphasized that the respondent should verify the petitioner's fulfillment of export obligations before taking further action. The judgment concluded by closing the connected miscellaneous petitions without imposing any costs.