Export obligation extension and redemption certificate defeated customs duty demand; writ relief was available despite an alternative remedy.
Where the competent export authority extended the export obligation period from eight years to ten years and a redemption letter recorded discharge of that obligation, the customs duty demand could not be sustained because those materials were not properly considered before confirmation of the demand. The Court also held that the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar writ relief, since the factual position on extension of time and discharge of obligation justified direct interference in writ jurisdiction. The impugned duty demand was quashed and the writ petitions were allowed.
Issues: (i) Whether the demand of duty confirmed against the importer under the export promotion capital goods scheme was liable to be set aside in view of the extension of the export obligation period and the subsequent redemption letter; (ii) Whether the writ petitions were not maintainable on the ground of availability of an appellate remedy before the Commissioner of Customs.
Issue (i): The extension letter issued by the Foreign Trade Development Officer enlarged the export obligation period from eight years to ten years, and the respondent did not dispute that extension. The redemption letter issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry also stated that the export obligation had been discharged. The impugned demand was passed without properly considering the extension letter and the subsequent redemption certificate.
Conclusion: The demand order was liable to be set aside.
Issue (ii): Though an appellate remedy was suggested, the Court found that the factual position on extension of time and discharge of export obligation justified interference in writ jurisdiction and did not require the petitioner to be driven to a formal appeal.
Conclusion: The existence of an alternative remedy did not bar the writ petitions.
Final Conclusion: The impugned duty demand was quashed and the writ petitions were allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent export authority has extended the export obligation period and a redemption letter evidences discharge of that obligation, a duty demand passed without considering those materials cannot be sustained, and writ relief may be granted notwithstanding an alternative appellate remedy.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
