Writ jurisdiction and drawback recovery: delayed notices, repealed rules, and reassessment of export value cannot be used to recover drawback.

Writ jurisdiction may be maintained despite an alternative remedy where the petition raises pure questions of law and jurisdiction. In drawback recovery matters, proceedings must still be initiated within a reasonable time when no statutory limitation is prescribed, and a five-year period from export or assessment is treated as reasonable. Recovery under Rule 16 of the repealed 1995 Drawback Rules is not sustainable after the 2017 Rules came into force unless the saving provision preserves the particular action. The statutory scheme also does not permit the department to reopen and reassess the FOB value of completed exports for drawback recovery in the absence of express authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy; (ii) Whether the show cause notices demanding duty drawback were barred for having been issued beyond a reasonable period of limitation; (iii) Whether the demand under Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 survived after the repeal of those Rules and the coming into force of the 2017 Rules; (iv) Whether the department had power to reassess the value of goods already exported and recover drawback on that basis.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The petitions raised pure questions of law and jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the existence of an alternate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962 did not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notices demanding duty drawback were barred for having been issued beyond a reasonable period of limitation.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that where the statute does not prescribe a specific limitation period for recovery action, the proceedings must still be initiated within a reasonable time. For drawback demands linked to export transactions, a period of five years from the date of export or assessment was treated as reasonable.

Conclusion: The notices issued after expiry of the reasonable period were not sustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand under Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 survived after the repeal of those Rules and the coming into force of the 2017 Rules.

Analysis: Rule 20(2) of the 2017 Rules saved only limited accrued rights and actions. A notice issued after 01.10.2017 invoking Rule 16 of the repealed 1995 Rules could not be sustained where the saving provision did not preserve the particular recovery action.

Conclusion: The demand under Rule 16 of the 1995 Rules was not sustainable after repeal.

Issue (iv): Whether the department had power to reassess the value of goods already exported and recover drawback on that basis.

Analysis: The statutory scheme did not confer a mechanism empowering the department to reopen and reassess the FOB value of goods already exported for the purpose of drawback recovery. In the absence of such authority, the re-determination of export value could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The department had no power to reassess the value of goods already exported.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders demanding recovery of drawback and rejecting the declared export value could not stand and were quashed, resulting in complete relief to the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory mechanism and within the saving framework of the successor rules, the department cannot reopen the value of completed exports or recover drawback by invoking a repealed provision after an unreasonable delay.

---