High Court rules for petitioners in duty drawback case, citing violation of fundamental rights. Customs directed to process claims promptly.

The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners in a case involving the illegal denial of duty drawback claims. Despite initial rejection based on technical grounds, the Court directed Customs authorities to determine the specific brand rate of drawback, emphasizing that the denial was unreasonable and a violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court instructed the authorities to process the drawback claims promptly without insisting on an unnecessary amendment to the shipping bills, granting relief to the petitioners within a specified timeframe.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Illegal denial of duty drawback claims.
2. Rejection of shipping bill amendment request.
3. Violation of petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Illegal Denial of Duty Drawback Claims:
The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the denial of duty drawback claims amounting to Rs. 20,69,357/-. The petitioners argued that the denial was based on untenable objections, violating their fundamental rights under Article 14. Initially, the petitioners' drawback claims were rejected on the grounds that duty was paid using DEPB Scrip instead of cash. This rejection was overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently upheld by the Joint Secretary, Government of India. However, the High Court, in Special Civil Application No. 8025 of 2015, ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the Customs authorities to determine the specific brand rate of drawback.

2. Rejection of Shipping Bill Amendment Request:
Despite the High Court's ruling, the Customs authorities refused to pay the drawback, citing the incorrect scheme code (20 instead of 47) in the shipping bills. The petitioners requested an amendment to the shipping bills to correct the scheme code, but this request was denied by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Drawback), who argued that the amendment was not permissible under Section 149 of the Customs Act. The petitioners contended that this refusal was unreasonable and unauthorized, as the scheme code is merely a procedural requirement and not mandated by the Customs Act or Drawback Rules.

3. Violation of Petitioners' Fundamental Rights:
The petitioners argued that the denial of their legitimate export benefits was a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the Customs authorities' refusal to pay the drawback based on a hyper-technical reason was wholly unreasonable. The Court emphasized that the petitioners had declared their exports under the drawback scheme in the shipping bills, and the subsequent orders determining the admissibility of the drawback claims were based on verified documents. Therefore, the Customs authorities were obligated to release the drawback without insisting on the amendment of the shipping bills.

Judgment:
The High Court found that the respondents' actions were unjustified and directed them to process the petitioners' drawback claims based on the previous orders without any further delay. The Court ruled that the insistence on rectifying the scheme code entry was unnecessary and that the Customs authorities should have acted in accordance with the law to avoid compelling the petitioners to seek judicial intervention. The petition was allowed, and the respondents were instructed to process the drawback claims within two weeks from the date of the writ order. The Court made the rule absolute to the extent of granting the petitioners' relief and did not award any costs.

---