9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ack, under which the exporters were paid drawback on the raw materials used in the manufacture of the exported goods. Under the second category, viz. Brand Rate Drawback, the drawbacks were allowed against particular branded items and the percentage of the drawback would be higher. These drawbacks used to be fixed every year by the Central Government. 3.The appellant, by application dated 5-10-1981, applied for fixation of Brand Rate Drawback on the goods exported by it during the period between 1-6-1979 and 31-5-1982. Similarly, the appellant, by its applications dated 26-7-1982, 20-8-1983 and 18-7-1984, applied for fixation of Brand Rate Drawback for the goods exported from 1-6-1982 to 31-5-1983, 1-6-1983 to 31-5-1984 and 1-6-1984 to 31-5-1985 respectively. The drawbacks were granted at the enhanced percentage and the request of the appellant was also granted for supplementary claim of the drawback for the period 1979-85. 4.In February, 1986, verification was done in the matters of drawbacks and the exports by the Enforcement Wing of the Collector of Customs and the Collector of Customs, fourth respondent herein, informed the Finished Leather Manufacturers and Exporters Assoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not granted any opportunity of being heard before the withdrawal of the drawbacks fixed for the finished leather goods exported by the petitioner and that there was a violation of principles of natural justice. It was also suggested that the impugned orders dated 9-2-1988 were made on the basis of the information received that a number of finished leather exporters had obtained brand rate by inflating and misrepresenting the consumption pattern and the duties paid on the inputs while the petitioner had never inflated or misrepresented the consumption of the materials and the duties paid thereon. It was reiterated by the petitioner that it had never conceded the irregularities as was suggested in the orders dated 9-2-1988. A complaint was made that the re-verification report, which was the basic document was submitted before the authorities only after the orders invoking the drawbacks were passed and thus could not be relied upon by the respondents. Thus, there was no basis for the impugned orders. Lastly it was contended that the full drawbacks could not have been withdrawn as the petitioner had actually paid the duties to the tune of Rs. 18,60,018.77 which was evidenced by pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e drawback claimed was in respect of the imported chemicals alone, the claims which were unsubstantiated, were rejected. It was also pointed out that the amount of import duty was actually inflated. A table was given by the Department in their counter to substantiate this. It was also pointed out that the discrepancy/shortcomings detected by the investigating agency were shown to the petitioner and the petitioner had endorsed having seen the same and the answers sent by the petitioner were also in general terms and not in specific terms. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had not produced the documents (GP-1) in support of the duty paid and it was found that the claim was made on notional basis on the ground that the chemicals were purchased from the open market. The Department also pointed out that DBK-1, DBK-2 and DBK-3 statements were also defective as they were based on the number of pieces and not on the total area of leather. Thus, according to the respondents, the petitioner had obtained more amount of drawbacks by inflating the details regarding the consumption of raw materials, chemicals, etc. 9.This Court finding that the re-verification report, which came into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is now withdrawn." Recording this finding, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, necessitating the present appeal. 11.Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Yasodh Vardhan very seriously contended that in this case right from the beginning the department proceeded on the incorrect factual data and there was abuse of natural justice even during the enquiry. He pointed out that the appellant had never conceded any irregularity and yet in the very beginning the authorities came to pass the order suggesting that such concession was made. The further argument of the learned counsel is that at any rate the appellant suffered a prejudice on account of the fact that a report, which was made subsequent to the impugned order and which was very heavily relied upon by the respondents, was never supplied to the appellant and when it was directed to be so supplied, a complete report was not given and thereby the appellant suffered a prejudice. Even on merits, the learned Counsel tried to suggest that the inferences drawn to the effect that the appellant had not given the correct figures of exports was incorrect and in fact there was no occasion for the appellant to mislead the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by directing its copy to be supplied to the appellant. Now, in fact, no fault could be found with the department because on the basis of its earlier inspection, the decision to withdraw the drawbacks was already taken and what was done by way of re-verification was only the exercise to get assured that the action taken was right. Therefore, the non-supply of the re-verification report by itself would be of no consequence. Again, it cannot be forgotten that even after the supply of the re-verification report as per the directions of the learned single Judge, the appellant did not offer to go before the authorities on that basis but instead chose to file an additional affidavit almost in the nature of a new petition, raising objections to each points serially. We find that the learned Judge, in paragraph 12 of his judgment, has taken into consideration the reply affidavit on its merits. 14.In paragraph 12 of his judgment, the learned single Judge took the stock of the reply affidavit on its merits and found that the respondent had correctly observed that there was no proof to show that the percentage of imported Wattle Extract used or inputs used for finished leather which was ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e heard and were given free hand to voice their grievances before the authorities. There is sizeable correspondence on records. We agree with the learned single Judge that in a petition under Art. 226, it may not be possible to go into the minute details regarding the entries and the re-verification report will have to be given its credence. We also do not accept the contention raised by Mr. Yasodh Vardhan that the appellant had not conceded to any irregularities. There are clear endorsements made on some entries and was also found by the learned single Judge. We are not impressed by the argument of Mr. Yasodh Vardhan that only a truncated report came to be given and that caused prejudice to the appellant. We cannot forget the fact that the appellant had not only accepted the report but also gave a detailed reply thereto and took an opportunity to argue the whole matter threadbare before the learned single Judge. Under such circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that the judgment of the learned single Judge cannot be interfered with and the writ appeal has absolutely no merits. 16.Learned Counsel for the appellant very heavily relied on the reported decision in 1997 (96) E.L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
