Court denies relief to petitioner challenging order confirming short levy without notice. Reminder: timely submission of required documents crucial.

The court denied relief to the petitioner challenging an order confirming short levy without prior notice under Section 28. The petitioner failed to submit required documents within the specified timeframe despite multiple reminders. The court emphasized the necessity of proper communication and service of notices. The petitioner's arguments were deemed lacking in merit, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. The petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000 to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee within one month, stressing the importance of compliance with statutory obligations in import procedures.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Ext.P30 order dated 08/06/2007 for short levy confirmation without prior notice as per Section 28.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the Ext.P30 order dated 08/06/2007 confirming a short levy without receiving a prior notice as required under Section 28. The petitioner imported Heavy Melting Steel Scraps, cleared under a notification allowing duty relaxation upon producing an 'End Use Certificate' (EU Certificate) and furnishing a bank guarantee. The EU Certificate was not submitted, and the bank guarantee was revalidated. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the Ext.P30 order until 2010, deeming it illegal and challenging its validity.

Upon examination, it was revealed that the petitioner failed to comply with producing the EU Certificate within the stipulated time frame. Several communications were sent to the petitioner requesting compliance, including notices to repay the short levy amount and revalidate the bank guarantee. Despite multiple opportunities, the petitioner did not respond adequately, leading to the finalization of the Ext.P30 order. The respondent argued that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands and had sufficient chances to rectify the situation.

The court issued an interim order to ascertain the circumstances of the Ext.P30 order, emphasizing the need for proper service of notices and communication. The respondent clarified that the Ext.P30 order was sent via registered post after giving the petitioner numerous opportunities to fulfill the requirements. The court, after reviewing the facts and evidence, concluded that the petitioner's claims lacked merit and denied any relief regarding the challenge to the Ext.P30 order dated 08/06/2007.

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000 to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee within one month. Failure to comply would result in the issuance of a recovery certificate to the concerned beneficiary. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with statutory requirements and the consequences of failing to fulfill obligations in import procedures.

---