9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 24-1-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher, J. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnanandh For Respondents : Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan ORDER 1. On the previous date, i.e., 06.01.2017, I had asked Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, to ascertain as to whether or not, the contention of the petitioner that he had fulfilled export obligation, was correct. 1.1. Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, has reverted with instructions. 1.2. Learned counsel says that the petitioner's contention that he had fulfilled export obligation is correct. 2. Therefore, the only defence, which has been put forth by Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, in opposition to the reliefs sought in the writ petition, is that, the petitioner has slept over his rights, and therefore, the acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Foreigh Trade, for import of capital goods. Accordingly, import of capital goods was made, albeit, under Notification No.49/2000. The Notification permitted the petitioner to import capital goods, without payment of duty, upon fulfillment of Export Obligation stipulated, via the aforementioned notification. As per the notification, the petitioner was required to fulfill the stipulated Export Obligation, within the time frame given therein. 4.2. It appears that the Department had issued a demand notice, dated 15.07.2010, to the petitioner, for payment of customs duty, with applicable rate of interest, based on a mistake, that the Export Obligation imposed on the petitioner, had been fulfilled. 4.3. As a matter of fact, it appears that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntially fulfilled. 7. It appears that the Department, somehow, woke up to the fact (and that too after more than five years) that the Order-in-Original, had not been completely, given effect to, though, in ignorance of the fact that petitioner had fulfilled his export obligation. 7.1. It is in these circumstances, that the impugned recovery notice, dated 05.08.2016, was served on the petitioner, seeking to recover a sum of ₹ 3,54,000/-. 8. As indicated above, the sustainability of the recovery notice, and the Order-in-Original, is assailed by the petitioner, on the ground that, the entire edifice of the two impugned orders, is based on a mistake of fact. It is the case of the petitioner that, since he had fulfilled the Export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committed a mistake in passing the Order-in-original dated 25.04.2011, based on a error that the petitioner had not fulfilled its export obligation. This mistake should have come to the notice of the Department, as the Order-in-original dated 25.01.2011, as alluded to above, was marked to the DGFT. 11.1. The information with regard to the fulfillment of the export obligation was, consequently, available in the DGFT's office. 11.2. As a matter of fact, the EODC, issued to the petitioner, on 29.07.2013, established this fact beyond doubt. Therefore, the encashment of the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner equivalent to a sum of ₹ 3,55,000/-, was, clearly, unlawful. 11.3. The more recent action of issuing the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
