Respondents ordered to refund duty drawback to petitioners by specified date

The Court directed the respondents to comply with the duty drawback refund direction issued in the 2010 order by issuing the refund to the petitioners before a specified date. The respondents were instructed to report compliance on a later date, emphasizing the need for all concerned parties to act upon an authenticated copy of the Court's order.

---

---

Issues: Implementation of duty drawback refund direction issued by the Division Bench of the Court under the Order dated 5th February, 2010.

Analysis:

1. The Notice of Motion was filed in April 2013 to seek the implementation of a direction issued by the Division Bench of the Court in 2010, which stated that the respondents were directed to refund duty drawback for a specific period. The respondents challenged this order by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, which was dismissed in 2011 due to delay and merits.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, in his affidavit, mentioned that the records related to the proceedings were not available in their office, and the petitioners had replied that the necessary documents were unavailable with them. However, it was noted that the respondents had the records until 2011, as evidenced by the filing of the Special Leave Petition.

3. The Court highlighted that the respondents did not refer to the order passed in Review Petition No. 3 of 2010, which was issued after hearing the respondents. It was emphasized that there was no grievance regarding the unavailability of records when the review petition was heard in 2010.

4. A detailed chart was annexed to the Writ Petition, providing a breakdown of pending drawback claims for a specific period. Specific averments were made in the Writ Petition regarding the details of drawback due to the petitioners, and these details were not disputed in the reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs.

5. The Court observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the refund of duty drawback, as directed in the 2010 order, had been issued. Therefore, the respondents could not refuse to comply with the final order, citing unavailability of records as a ground.

6. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to comply with the direction issued in the 2010 order by issuing the refund to the petitioners before a specified date. The Notice of Motion was disposed of with instructions for reporting compliance on a later date, emphasizing that all concerned parties should act upon an authenticated copy of the Court's order.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment regarding the implementation of the duty drawback refund direction issued by the Division Bench of the Court.

---