9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent has indicated in his order itself that an appeal would lie against the order impugned, without exhausting the appeal remedy, the petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings before this court. Therefore, when an alternative remedy is effectively and efficaciously available to the petitioner, it is appropriate for them to exhaust such remedy as provided under the Rules – petition dismissed with direction. - 264 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2010 - MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jaikumar For Respondent : Mr.P.Mahadevan, Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel O R D E R The order under challenge is passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Drawback), Chennai, wherein the Drawback claims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r-in-original No.8056/2008 dated 18.08.2008, wherein the drawback claims for the above said seven shipping bills were suspended till the clearance for release of drawback amount or any other direction from the investigation agencies. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this court. 3. The respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is an exporter of Stainless Steel articles and had filed 7 Shipping Bills, which were treated as original drawback claims. While processing the duty drawback claim submitted by the petitioner, the department had been alerted by the DGCEI vide Letter No.FNO.INT/CHZU/88/2004 dated 06.10.2005 that the petitioner has been indulging in malpractices to obtain more export inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the DGCEI, the petitioner could have obtained an NOC from DGCEI and produced the same to this court. 4. Heard Mr.S.Jaikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Mahadevan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the investigations carried out by DGCEI is not connected to the petitioner and the malpractices alleged to have been made by the petitioner are in no way connected to the bills claiming drawback. Therefore, the impugned order is not in accordance with law and even the appeal remedy as communicated in the impugned order cannot be an effective remedy to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed Drawback under All Industry Rate specified in the Drawback schedule. The eligibility of the Drawback claims are subject to the verification of Bank Realization Certificate issued by the Foreign Exchange dealing Bank in favour of the exporter as per Rule 16 of the Rules. 9. It is understood from the impugned order that the petitioner has to submit the Bank Realisation Certificates for the drawback claim made in respect of 7 Shipping Bills. Therefore, the appropriate authority to deal with the claim of the petitioner has to give consideration to the claim of the petitioner after getting all the particulars from them. Though the claim of the petitioner is rejected by the respondent on the ground that investigation is under progr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner to prefer such an appeal, before approaching this court. Though the respondent has indicated in his order itself that an appeal would lie against the order impugned, without exhausting the appeal remedy, the petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings before this court. Therefore, when an alternative remedy is effectively and efficaciously available to the petitioner, it is appropriate for them to exhaust such remedy as provided under the Rules. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to prefer an appeal to the appellate authority against the order impugned in this petition, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the appellate authority is direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
