2023 (9) TMI 667 - HC - Customs

Court Overturns Order Denying Duty Drawback; Petitioner to Submit Bank Statement for Reconsideration Within 6 Weeks.

The court quashed the impugned order dated 22.09.2020, which denied the petitioner duty drawback benefits due to a missing bank realization statement. The ... Duty Drawback - denial of benefit on the ground of non-submission of relevant document by petitioner - contention of the petitioner is that the Bank would grant statement of bank realization manually until 2000, but subsequently it is the duty of the Bank is to upload the Bank Realization Statement in its portal - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Bank has uploaded as early as on 02.09.2013 itself. Before passing order, the respondents have not verified the same. Moreover, the respondents have not issued any Show Cause notice. Therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to explain the same before the authorities. It is also submitted that the company was closed in the year 2015 itself. Therefore, there was no communication among the parties. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief based on the statement of Bank realization, which the petitioner has enclosed in page No.46 of the typed set of papers. Petition allowed. Issues involved: Challenge to impugned order denying duty drawback benefits due to missing bank realization statement.Summary:Issue 1: Denial of duty drawback benefits due to missing bank realization statementThe petitioner exported goods and claimed duty drawback benefits, which were denied by the respondents citing lack of submission of the relevant bank realization document. The petitioner argued that historically, the bank would manually provide the statement until 2000, but later it became the bank's responsibility to upload it online. The petitioner contended that the respondents had access to this information and should have verified the bank realization statement. The court noted that the bank had uploaded the statement on 02.09.2013, which the respondents failed to verify before denying the benefits. No show cause notice was issued, and the petitioner, whose company had closed in 2015, had no opportunity to explain. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief based on the bank realization statement submitted.Decision:The impugned order dated 22.09.2020 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to issue a notice to the petitioner for a personal hearing. The petitioner was instructed to submit the bank realization statement, after which the respondents were to pass a new order within six weeks. The writ petition was allowed with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.