9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant Drawback to the petitioner in respect of 207 shipping bills, amounting to Rs. 5,86,23,750/-. 2.W.P.No.3262 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the communication dated 16.10.2008 and to quash the same. 3.W.P.No.3263 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 3rd respondent relating to the communication dated 05.05.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent (Central Board of Excise and Customs) and to quash the same. 4.W.P.No.3264 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner made an application for conversion of EOU shipping bills into Drawback shipping bills with effect from 01.04.2007 as the EOU has been converted into DTA. As there was no response, the petitioner gave a representation dated 22.07.2008 along with all the relevant documents, including a tabular statement giving details of payment of duty. (iii)According to the petitioner, on 16.10.2008, the Commissioner of Customs (Seaports) had rejected the petitioner's request on the ground that the petitioner did not give any reasons which were beyond their control for not filing Drawback shipping bills without realizing the fact that the petitioner could not have filed the Drawback shipping bills till Final Exit order from the Development C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for reasons beyond his control, failed to make certain declarations relating to Drawback claim on the export goods on the shipping bills, he may allow exemption from these declarations that were not made in the first place and Drawback can then be given. The exemption is permissible only when the declarations were not made for reasons beyond the control of the exporter or his authorized agent. (ii)According to the respondents, the petitioner has not stated that for the reasons beyond their control the declarations were not made. The respondents have also stated that despite numerous reminders, the petitioner has failed to furnish evidence for payment of duty on finished goods in stock, if any, as on 31.03.2007. (iii)Further according to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 8.Heard Mr.C.Manishankar, learned senior counsel on behalf of Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the Writ Petitions, Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned counsel for the respondents in W.P.Nos.3261 to 3263 of 2010 and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned counsel for the respondents in W.P.No.3264 of 2010. 9.On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it could be seen that by letter dated 02.03.2009, the Joint Commissioner (CCO) informed the Commissioner of Customs (Seaports) to examine the issue in detail and submit the comments for perusal of Chief Commissioner. In response, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise authorities is not sustainable and cannot be acceded to. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a representation dated 09.07.2009 to the Revenue Secretary justifying their case. 9.2.On 31.07.2009, a demand cum show cause notice was issued demanding a sum of Rs. 1,95,81,932/-, which was disbursed as Drawback to the petitioner. The basis of this demand is the rejection letter dated 16.10.2008 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Exports) in respect of Drawback claimed for the exports made from the Seaport. On 24.08.2009, the petitioner sent a reply to the demand cum show cause notice raising various defenses. 9.3.On a perusal of the impugned order dated 16.10.2008, which is challenged in W.P.No.3262 of 2010, it could be seen that the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he recovery of Drawback amount, which was already sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioner. The order dated 05.05.2009 is a non-speaking order, which cannot be sustained. Since the order passed by the Technical Officer (Drawback) is a non-speaking order, the same is liable to be set aside and the Technical Officer should be directed to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. 9.6.For the reasons stated above, the communication dated 05.05.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent/Central Board of Excise and Customs in W.P.No.3263 of 2010, is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to decide the matter afresh, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after receiving their repl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
