Court sets aside orders, remands for fresh consideration. Petitioner to provide Bank Realization Certificate proof.

The Court allowed the Writ Petitions, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the first respondent with proof of timely Bank Realization Certificate availability. If the proof is satisfactory, the first respondent was instructed to assess and decide the matter promptly and in compliance with the law. The first respondent was also authorized to verify the authenticity of the petitioner's claims and the Bank Realization Certificate. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original for payment of drawback under Customs Act, 1962 and recovery notice based on failure to produce evidence of export proceeds realization within allowed period under FEMA and Rules.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order-in-original directing payment of a sum as drawback under the Customs Act, 1962, and the subsequent recovery notice. The impugned order was based on the petitioner's alleged failure to provide evidence of export proceeds realization within the stipulated period under FEMA and the Rules. The petitioner contended that they had indeed produced the Bank Realization Certificate within the required timeframe, but the Department overlooked it, leading to the issuance of the impugned order and recovery notice.

The Rules stipulate that if an exporter realizes sale proceeds after drawback recovery and provides evidence of such realization within three months, the recovered amount shall be repaid. The petitioner claimed to have realized the amount within one year of availing the drawback, supported by the Bank Realization Certificate issued five months after availing the drawback. The Court noted the possibility of the amount already being recovered but highlighted the importance of evidence showing realization within the RBI-permitted timeframe for repayment.

The Court allowed the Writ Petitions, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the first respondent with proof of timely Bank Realization Certificate availability. If the proof is satisfactory, the first respondent was instructed to assess and decide the matter promptly and in compliance with the law. The first respondent was also authorized to verify the authenticity of the petitioner's claims and the Bank Realization Certificate. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

---