2024 (2) TMI 1326 - HC - Customs

Grant of Advance Authorisation - export of goods - Fulfilment of Export Obligation or not - whether discretionary jurisdiction should be exercised in light of the redemption letter - HELD THAT - On record redemption letter, It is evident that the export obligation was met in full by the petitioner both with regard to value and quantity. This letter was issued after the order impugned herein was issued. At the end of the day, an exporter was required to fulfil export obligations as a condition for the grant of advance authorisation. The documents on record include the redemption letter, and such redemption letter shows that the export obligation was fulfilled in entirety. In those circumstances, the petitioner must be provided an opportunity to place relevant documents before the 1st respondent. Therefore, the impugned order calls for interference. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to place all relevant documents before the 1st respondent. Upon consideration thereof, the 1st respondent is directed to issue a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves issues related to export obligations, redemption certificate, natural justice, and exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.

Export Obligations:
The petitioner, engaged in export of goods, obtained an advance authorisation subject to fulfilling export obligations. Despite submitting a representation and awaiting a redemption certificate, the petitioner faced a second show cause notice resulting in an order imposing penalties and confiscating goods. The petitioner contended that the export obligations were met in full, supported by a redemption letter issued after the impugned order.

Redemption Certificate and Natural Justice:
The petitioner highlighted the breach of natural justice as the impugned order was issued before the redemption certificate was obtained, despite fulfilling export obligations. The petitioner argued that principles of natural justice were violated as the request for redemption certificate was pending with the authority. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment emphasizing the importance of redemption certificates in similar cases.

Exercise of Discretionary Jurisdiction:
The question for consideration was whether discretionary jurisdiction should be exercised in light of the redemption letter confirming fulfillment of export obligations. The petitioner sought to present the redemption certificate before the authority, while the respondent contended that the petitioner should have pursued a statutory remedy. The court referred to previous judgments and held that the impugned order should be quashed, remanding the matter for reconsideration by the authority, allowing the petitioner to submit relevant documents.

In conclusion, the High Court quashed the impugned order, remanded the matter for reconsideration by the authority, and directed the issuance of a fresh order within three months, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to present all relevant documents. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.