9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and insisted that amendment should be granted accordingly. I declined to do so because amendment to the petition cannot be granted during the hearing of the petition and that too by merely tendering across the draft amendment. The petitioners should have taken care to take out Chamber Summons as prescribed by the Original Side Rules. It seems that the petitioners and the Advisers are under the impression that Rules are not made to be observed and they can throw anything at the Court whenever it is convenient to them. I declined to permit that course. Shri Shroff thereafter also stated that he had filed an affidavit before Mr. Justice Kurdukar before when the petition came up for hearing on January 6, 1986 and was adjourned. The Affidavit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is claimed by the petitioner that in the meanwhile, the respondent No. 1 brought into effect a Duty Exemption Scheme whereby importers were allowed to import goods free of customs duty if the goods imported are used for manufacture of finished goods and the same are exported. The petitioners further claimed in paragraph 4 that the said Scheme is published in the Import and Export Policy April 1983-March 1984. The next sentence is that the Central Government also issued a Customs Notification "dated April 5, 1982 in implementation of the Duty Exemption Scheme. I enquired from the learned counsel as to when the Scheme initially came into force and no answer was given. In case, the Scheme has come into force by the Policy of April 1983-Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund the duty of Rs. 3,29,830.85. The Customs Authorities sent reply on November 15, 1983 pointing out that under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, it is not permissible for the Collector of Customs to make refund after the expiry of period of six months. The Collector also pointed out that the duty was paid and the clearance from private Bonded Warehouse was not made because of default of the petitioners and in spite of the fact that Advance Licence was secured within period of six months from payment of duty, the petitioners did not bother to seek refund. The petitioners thereafter took no steps in the matter. On March 28, 1984, the Clearing Agents of the petitioner addressed letter to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 and the hearing was expedited. The reliefs sought are quashing of the order passed by the Collector of Customs on November 15, 1983, refusing relief to the petitioners and quashing of order dated December 31, 1984 passed by the Appellate Authority in regard to the application for refund made by the Clearing Agents of the petitioners. 5. Shri Sethna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, very rightly pointed out that the order dated November 15, 1983 passed by the Collector of Customs was never challenged by the petitioners by filing any appeal and it is too late in the day to claim in the present petition that the said order should be set aside. Shri Sethna also submitted that the petitioners have tried to re-open the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cured the advance licence in accordance with the Notification dated April 5, 1982, the petitioners are not liable to pay any Customs Duty or Additional Duty. The learned counsel urged that in accordance with the advance licence, the Customs duty ought to have been refunded. It is not possible to accede to the submission because the refund could not be granted by the Customs Authorities after the expiry of the period of six months from the date of payment of duty. The duty was paid on November 11, 1982 and the application for refund was admittedly made subsequent to period of six months from that date. The petitioners had secured Advance Licence within, a period of six months, but still did not care to file the application for refund. The pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very was in any manner illegal. In my judgment, the Customs authorities were properly justified in rejecting the application on the ground that the application for refund was made six months after the payment of duty. 7. Before parting with the case, I must express my entire disapproval of the manner in which the petition was filed and the case was conducted. It would have been desirable if more care was taken in filing the petition and conducting it. It is time that every one should realise that the petitioners are not to be conducted in casual manner and application for amendments are not to be made as a formality. It is the duty of the petitioners to ensure that the affidavits, if any, filed by them are on the record. In my judgment, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
