2024 (9) TMI 257 - HC - Customs

Suppression of material facts or not - it was alleged that petitioner had not realized the foreign exchange (sale/export proceeds) in respect of the goods exported based on which the drawback was sanctioned - HELD THAT - It is averred in the petition that petitioner was shocked to know that the Order-in-Original has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority-Respondent no.4 against it in an ex-parte manner. Petitioner therefore, filed an appeal under Section 128A of the Act before respondent No. 3. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 24th December 2020. It is stated that the order came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation without appreciating the merit of the case. Against the said order, petitioner preferred a revision application before respondent No. 2 which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 18th September 2023. All these three orders are impugned in this petition. There is not even an attempt to explain the situation in this petition. There is no reference at all to this communication dated 19th November 2012 by petitioner or to the notice of personal hearing dated 19th October 2012. If petitioner had not addressed the said letter dated 19th November 2012, it is certain that would have been so stated in the petition. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the attempt of petitioner is not only to hide truth from the Authorities but also to obtain orders from this Court by suppressing material facts. It is settled law that any party approaching this Court should come with clean hands and as noted here, petitioner s hands are absolutely muddied. The petition dismissed with cost in the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs that petitioner shall pay to Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. If this amount is not paid within two weeks and compliance affidavit filed, respondents may recover this amount with @18% p.a. interest thereon from the date hereof together with the amount recoverable under the order-in-original passed on 3rd January 2013.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegations of the petitioner lying and suppressing material facts before authorities and the court.
2. Petitioner seeking reliefs through writs of Certiorari and Mandamus.
3. Exporter claiming drawback under Customs Act, 1962 for exports made between 2004-2008.
4. Allegation of petitioner not receiving a Demand-cum-Notice and subsequent ex-parte order.
5. Petitioner's appeal and revision application dismissed on grounds of limitation and merit.
6. Emphasis on petitioner's consistent lying before authorities and failure to submit relevant documents.
7. Court's refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 due to petitioner's actions.
8. Requirement for parties approaching the court to have clean hands.
9. Imposition of substantial costs on petitioner for suppressing material facts.

The judgment by the Bombay High Court involved a case where the petitioner, an exporter, was found to have approached the court with unclean hands, having lied and suppressed material facts both before the authorities and the court. The petitioner sought reliefs through writs of Certiorari and Mandamus, challenging orders related to drawback claims under the Customs Act, 1962 for exports made between 2004 and 2008. Allegations were made that the petitioner did not receive a Demand-cum-Notice and an ex-parte order was passed against them. Despite filing appeals and a revision application, these were dismissed on grounds of limitation and lack of merit. The court noted the petitioner's consistent dishonesty before the authorities and emphasized the failure to submit relevant documents. Consequently, the court refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 due to the petitioner's actions, highlighting the importance of parties approaching the court with clean hands and truthfulness. As a result, the petition was dismissed, and a substantial cost of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on the petitioner to be paid to the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, with provisions for interest and recovery if not paid within the specified timeframe.