9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 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. Petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.Nos.3261 to 3264 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2018 - Mr. Justice M. Duraiswamy For the Petitioner : Mr.C.Manishankar, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy For the Respondents : Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, W.P.Nos.3261 to 3263 of 2010 - R1 to R3 Mr.V.Sundareswaran W.P.No.3264 of 2010 - R1 R2 COMMON ORDER W.P.No.3261 of 2010 has been filed by the 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 ₹ 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Commissioner. (iv)Further according to the petitioner, the order dated 16.10.2008 was not communicated to them and they obtained the same by making an application under the Right to Information Act and the same was furnished by the Information Officer along with his letter dated 26.06.2009. The 3rd respondent, by communication dated 05.05.2009 conveyed the decision to reject the petitioner's claim for Drawback. (v)The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 16.10.2008 and 05.05.2009 in W.P.Nos.3262 3263 of 2010 respectively. In W.P.No.3264 of 2010, the petitioner has challenged the demand cum show cause notice dated 31.07.2009 issued by the 1st respondent, reviewing his earlier order dated 20.11.2008 sanctioning Drawback. (vi)According to the petitioner, the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) has issued the demand cum show cause notice on the instructions of the Chief Commissioner's communication dated 13.03.2009. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of which duties or taxes have not been paid. The initial communication dated 10.04.2007, which is a No Objection Certificate issued by the Ministry, was subject to fulfillment of certain conditions and admittedly, the Final Exit order was issued only on 01.01.2008. Hence, it is not fair on the part of the petitioner in claiming the Drawback for the period from July 2007 to December 2007. In these circumstances, 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, the Commissioner of Customs (Sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hipping bills is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. However, in the said letter, the Commissioner of Customs has also stated that the Board's directions are awaited for finalizing the matter. 9.4.By communication dated 05.05.2009, which is challenged in W.P.No.3263 of 2010, the Technical Officer (Drawback) informed the petitioner that the issue was examined by the Board and it was decided not to allow Drawback on consignments exported prior to issuance of No Dues Certificate by the Customs and Central Excise Authorities. The Joint Commissioner (CCO), by letter dated 13.03.2009 informed the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) that he was directed by the Chief Commissioner to inform the Commissioner to issue a demand for recovery of the Drawback amount already sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioner and furnish a report for the perusal of the Chief Commissioner. 9.5.On a perusal of the letter dated 05.05.2009, it is clear that the Technical Officer (Drawback) has not considered the case of the petitioner in a proper manner. The Technical Officer should have considered the case of the petitioner and passed a detailed order. That apart, as already stated, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
