9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayed for the matter being remanded to first respondent for adjudication afresh after quashing of the order dated 13.05.2014 (Annexure-A). 2. I have heard the arguments of Sri G Shivadass , learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri K.N.Mohan , learned panel counsel appearing for respondents. Perused the records as also statement of objections filed by respondents. 3. Petitioner is engaged in manufacturing, trading and export of computers and various other electronic items. In the course of its business, petitioner imported personal computers and accessories from China through 48 bills of entry. Imports have taken place at Chennai Port on payment of applicable duties and the goods so imported are received at their factory at Pondicherry. Subsequently, goods imported were not taken to be used domestically and as such, after making certain value additions, petitioner claims to have exported said goods to Bangladesh against purchase orders received from its customers located at Dhaka, Bangladesh and having exported the same under 10 shipping bills during the period November, 2006 to 2007 as per Annexure-B, petitioner is said to have received payment in free foreign exchange th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a direction to fourth respondent to allow duty drawback. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that first respondent has now amended extant Rules namely, Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Custom Duties) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules, 1995') in particular, Rule 5 by amendment dated 26.05.1995 whereunder Rule 5 which provides for manner and time of claiming drawback on goods exported other than by post has undergone change namely, earlier period fixed for three months, has been now extended up to six months, in all, nine months is allowed and as such, claim of petitioner involved in these writ petitions ranging from 6 months to 13 months was with a plausible explanation which ought to have been accepted by first respondent particularly when the authorities themselves have confirmed the exportation of consignment, petitioner cannot be deprived of the substantial benefit to which it is entitled to. 6. Per contra, Sri K.N.Mohan , learned panel Advocate appearing for respondents by reiterating the pleas urged in the statement of objections would support the impugned order and submits that inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner and its Custom Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n other words, said authority it would be entitled to condone the delay. 9. In the instant case, reasons assigned by petitioner for filing applications beyond the period prescribed is on account of its inability to collect the documents at a time and file the same before authorities. Reasons have been explained or cause has been shown in the representations/applications dated 04.01.2008 and 04.10.2008 (Annexures-C & F). At the first instance, petitioner submitted the application for duty drawback before jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs and on same being refused to be taken on record, petitioner approached first respondent by filing an application dated 04.10.2008. Third respondent forwarded said application dated 04.01.2008 submitted by the petitioner for condonation of delay to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkatta on 11.01.2008 vide Annexure-D and has called upon the jurisdictional Commissioner to furnish factual report who in turn has stated by his reply dated 24.03.2008 (Annexure-E) that after having ascertained that exports under 6 numbers of bills of export were effected by the petitioner through Petropole L.C.S. after original examination of the goods in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of respondent therein and Rule 15 of Customs and Central Excise Duties Draw Back Rules, 1971 was attracted to the facts and circumstances of the said case which order came to be affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.17492/2007. This would clearly indicate that authorities while examining the application for relaxing or for condonation of delay has to be more pragmatic or in other words if it is found that claim is not a false claim or in other words, it is genuine claim, they would be liberal in condoning delay. However, if authorities were to find that claim itself is doubtful, they would be within their domain to reject the application while considering the claim for relaxation of time or for condonation of delay as is permissible under Rule 7A of the Rules, 1995. While examining the sufficiency of cause shown by the exporter or his authorized agent, liberal approach ought to be adopted and technicalities even if any should yield to substantial justice. 12. In fact, under similar circumstances, Division Bench of Kolkata High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI vs. TERAI OVERSEAS LTD reported in (2003) 156 ELT 841 (Cal.) has held that while conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
