9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents were seized by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - in the present case, denial of refund claims based on the limitation prescribed under the Notification cannot be justified and imposed against the petitioner M/s.Kaamda Impex as all the documents of the said petitioner were admittedly seized as per the Mahazer dated 02.07.2013. The said writ petitioner could not have filed the refund claims in absence of the vital documents. The cases are remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order of refund of the amounts paid by the petitioner at the time of import, if the said writ petitioner has otherwise satisfied the other requirements of Notification No.102/2007- Cus dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008 - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.Nos.24269 & 22385 to 22388 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 16-3-2021 - Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Viswanathan in all W.Ps. For the Respondents : Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, SCGSC, in all W.Ps. COMMON ORDER By this common order, all the five Writ Petitions are being disposed. 2. In these Writ Petitions, the respective petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were satisfied, the jurisdictional customs officer like the second respondent herein was required to sanction the refund to an importer like the petitioners. 6. According to the petitioners, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) raided the business premises of the petitioners and seized all the documents under a mahazer dated 02.07.2013 and therefore the petitioners could not file the refund claims in time, i.e. within one year from the date of payment of the aforesaid duty. 7. It is submitted that after getting copies of the relevant bills of Entry on 14.05.2015 from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, they were filed by the petitioners with the second respondent. It is submitted that claims could not be filed in time as all the document including respective Bills of Entry had been seized by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on 02.07.2013 and limitation prescribed in the notification had expired when refund claims were filed and therefore such delay in filing the refund him cannot be to the disadvantage of the petitioners as the said department was part of the Customs Department. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance was placed on the following deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Both the petitioners appear to have lent their I.E. Code to few other persons to import goods who have evaded anti-dumping customs duty. 13. The refund claims were filed on various dates, by which time, the time specified in the notification for filing the refund claims had already expired. Therefore, some of the claims in their entirety were rejected as time barred while some of the claims were allowed in part being filed within the limitation. 14. The second respondent allowed the refund claims to the extent they were filed within the period of one year from the date of payment of customs duty. However, majority of the claims have been denied as they were beyond the period of one year from the date of payment of customs duty. 15. The petitioners plead Lex non-cogit ad impossibilia in filing of refund claims in time. According to the petitioners, they had to liaison with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to get copies of the Bills of Entries and since the Bills of Entries were not given to the petitioners in time, there was a delay in filing the refund claims. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 02.07.2013 of M/s. Kaamda Impex which has been filed indicates that documents were seized. It is not clear whether copies of other writ petitioner M/s.M.M.Enterprises were also seized on 02.07.2013 by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Copy of Mahazer of the said writ petitioner has not been filed. 23. In my view, denial of refund claims based on the limitation prescribed under the Notification cannot be justified and imposed against the petitioner M/s.Kaamda Impex as all the documents of the said petitioner were admittedly seized as per the Mahazer dated 02.07.2013. The said writ petitioner could not have filed the refund claims in absence of the vital documents. 24. Therefore, the impugned orders impugned in W.P.Nos.22385 and 22386 of 2016 and W.P.No.24269 of 2016 denying the benefit of refund of Special Additional Duty paid under section 5 (3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 are quashed and cases are remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order of refund of the amounts paid by the petitioner at the time of import, if the said writ petitioner has otherwise satisfied the other requirements of Notification No.102/2007- Cus dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
