2022 (1) TMI 775 - HC - Customs

Seeking payment of duty drawback claim, along with interest - HELD THAT - The material on record indicates that it is an undisputed fact that vide Order dated 06.07.2019, the respondent No.1 had rejected the claim of the petitioner for duty drawback. However, by Order dated 06.03.2020, the Appellate Authority not only set aside the said order dated 06.07.2019 passed by respondent No.1, but has also come to the categorical conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the duty drawback claim made by him as well as interest on the same under Section 27A of the Customs Act - the said Order dated 06.03.2020 was binding upon the respondent No.1 who had no other option than to give effect and implement the same thereby disbursing the duty drawback claim in favour of the petitioner together with applicable interest as directed in the Order dated 06.03.2020 and failure on the part of the respondent No.1 to appreciate this and instead proceeding to reject the claim of the petitioner on irrelevant and extraneous grounds is clearly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the principles of resjudicata. The respondent No.1 has proceeded to revisit / review the Order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority which is clearly impermissible in law particularly when the Order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the higher Authority / Appellate Authority setting aside the earlier Order dated 06.07.2019 passed by respondent No.1 had attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon respondent No.1, who was neither entitled nor empowered to either interpret / re-examine / review / revisit or go behind / beyond the said Order dated 06.03.2020 and the only option available to the respondent No.1 was to give effect to and implement the Order dated 06.03.2020. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of Order-in-Original and direction for duty drawback claim payment. Interpretation of finality of Order-in-Appeal dated 06.03.2020. Jurisdiction of respondent No.1 to reject duty drawback claim. Permissibility of revisiting Order-in-Appeal. Compliance with legal principles and binding nature of appellate orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought the quashing of the Order-in-Original and a direction for the payment of duty drawback claim. The petitioner relied on the Order-in-Appeal dated 06.03.2020, which had set aside the earlier rejection of the claim by respondent No.1 and allowed the duty drawback claim with interest. The petitioner argued that the Order-in-Appeal had attained finality and was binding on the respondents, requiring them to comply with its directions. Despite the petitioner's representations and personal hearings, respondent No.1 issued an impugned order rejecting the claim, which the petitioner contended was against the principles of res judicata and public policy. The petitioner emphasized that respondent No.1 had no authority to re-examine the claim upheld by the Appellate Authority, as per the legal precedents cited.

The respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order, claiming no merit in the petition. The court carefully considered the submissions and the material on record. It noted that the Order-in-Appeal dated 06.03.2020 conclusively upheld the petitioner's duty drawback claim and interest, making it binding on respondent No.1. Therefore, respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to review or interpret the Order-in-Appeal and reject the claim. The court found respondent No.1's actions to be illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of res judicata. The court emphasized that respondent No.1 was obligated to implement the Order-in-Appeal and disburse the duty drawback claim with interest as directed.

Regarding the contentions raised by the respondents to support the impugned order, the court clarified that respondent No.1's attempt to revisit or review the Order-in-Appeal was impermissible in law. The finality and binding nature of the Order-in-Appeal precluded respondent No.1 from interpreting or re-examining it. As a result, the court rejected all contentions put forth by the respondents. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to pay the duty drawback claim along with interest within a specified timeframe.