2022 (8) TMI 15 - HC - Customs

Court rules in favor of petitioner, makes Rule absolute, and dismisses petition due to unreasonable delay.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, making the Rule absolute and disposing of the petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The court held ... Project Import - De-registration of the contracts registered by petitioner - Delayed adjudication and new objection raised by the revenue after 30 years of re-export - seeking direction that the goods imported by petitioner be assessed on merit without the benefit of Project Import Regulations 1986 under the Heading 98.01 (erstwhile 84.06) of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 - HELD THAT:- If at all respondents had any issue of petitioner not strictly complying with Regulation 7 of the Project Import Regulations 1986, it is respondents’ case that petitioner should have submitted the details of goods imported together with necessary documents within three months from the date of clearance for home consumption of last consignment. The three months period appears to have expired sometime in 1984 and in any case before the Writ Petition No.116 of 1988 was filed. Respondents have not raised any such grievance before this court in that writ petition. Respondents had another opportunity to raise this grievance when petitioner filed Notice of Motion No.149 of 2012 for return of bank guarantees. Even at that stage, respondents were silent and in fact respondents made statement to the court that they shall return the bank guarantees which had expired and they shall not invoke the remaining bank guarantees and within two weeks will return the same duly discharged upon expiry or the validity thereof, without insisting for renewal. Respondents could have told the court that the file has not been closed and these are the problems that petitioner has not fulfilled the requirements of Regulation 7 of the Project Import Regulations 1986 and, therefore, the question of returning any bank guarantee would not arise. Even when petitioner returned the bank guarantees or the remaining 4 bank guarantees, even at that stage, respondents do not raise the issue of the file being open. On 19th December 2012, respondent no.2 addressed a communication to petitioner, as noted earlier that out of the 65 bank guarantees that had expired, only 46 could be traced out and returned those 46 bank guarantees. As regards remaining 19 bank guarantees, respondent no.2 informed petitioner that original bank guarantees could not be traced out / are not available but the same are cancelled and discharged with immediate effect. If petitioner had not complied with the Regulation No.7 of the Project Import Regulations 1986, we fail to understand, why none of these points were ever raised before the court when earlier writ petition was argued or when the notice of motion was heard or even while returning the bank guarantees duly cancelled. If according to respondents requirements had to be complied with within three months from the date of clearance for home consumption, respondents could have even refused permission to petitioner to re-export the equipments because by then anyway those three months period had expired. It is not respondents’ case that the said period had been ever extended by any proper officer - the order passed by respondent no.2 only amounts to an attempt to over reach and circumvent the orders passed by this court on 12th August 2008 and 10th December 2012. Not having raised any of these points before despite having ample opportunities, respondents cannot after a belated period of almost 30 years, raise the requisition upon petitioner to meet alleged post import requirements. Though there is no time limit prescribed, that would not mean that the department could commence adjudication proceedings after 20 or 25 or 30 years by calling upon parties to comply with alleged obligations which they had. That would also amount to violating the principles of natural justice, in as much as, long delay will deprive a party from marshaling the documents or witnesses as there is always a possibility of documents or the witnesses disappearing or ceasing to exist after such a long gap. Petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the de-registration order and assessment of imported goods without Project Import Regulations benefits.2. Compliance with post-importation conditions under Project Import Regulations 1986.3. Legality of the demand for documents related to imports made decades ago.4. The effect of prior court orders on the current dispute.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the De-registration Order and Assessment of Imported Goods:The petitioner, a French company, challenged the order dated 21st June 2013, which directed the de-registration of contracts and assessment of imported goods without the benefit of Project Import Regulations 1986. The petitioner argued that this order contradicted the earlier court ruling on 12th August 2008, which had quashed two show-cause notices and restrained the enforcement of bonds and guarantees.2. Compliance with Post-importation Conditions:The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to fulfill post-importation conditions required under the Project Import Regulations 1986, such as submitting reconciliation statements and documentary evidence proving the use of imported goods in setting up the project. The petitioner countered that these demands were invalid due to the significant delay and the prior court ruling that had settled the matter.3. Legality of the Demand for Documents:The respondents issued a demand notice on 8th January 2013, requiring the petitioner to furnish documents related to imports made nearly 30 years ago. The petitioner argued that this demand was unreasonable due to the elapsed time and the prior court ruling, which had already addressed these issues. The court noted that the respondents had ample opportunities to raise these issues earlier but failed to do so.4. Effect of Prior Court Orders:The court emphasized that the order dated 12th August 2008 had attained finality and had confirmed the petitioner's entitlement to the benefits under the Project Import Regulations. The court also noted that the respondents had not raised any issues regarding non-compliance with Regulation 7 of the Project Import Regulations 1986 during the earlier proceedings or when returning the bank guarantees. The court found that the respondents' actions amounted to an attempt to circumvent the earlier court orders.Conclusion:The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, making the Rule absolute and disposing of the petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The court held that the respondents could not raise the requisition upon the petitioner to meet alleged post-import requirements after a delay of almost 30 years. The court also noted that such long delays violate the principles of natural justice, as they deprive parties of the ability to marshal documents or witnesses.