Petition against RoDTEP refund scheme rejection not maintainable; appeal must be filed under Section 128A Customs Act

The HC held that the petition challenging the rejection of the refund scheme under RoDTEP was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 128A of the Customs Act. Issues raised regarding precedent, legal interpretation, and limitation are to be addressed by the appellate authority first. The petition was filed within the limitation period for appeal, and the court directed the petitioner to file the appeal within two weeks. The appellate authority was instructed to decide the appeal on merits without raising limitation objections. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the court should entertain a petition challenging the rejection of a refund claim under the RoDTEP scheme or require exhaustion of the alternate remedy of appeal under the Customs Act.Whether the limitation bar applies to the petitioner's claim for refund under the RoDTEP scheme, particularly when the initial recovery was alleged to be void ab initio.Whether the rejection of the refund claim without considering merits and representations violates the principles of natural justice.The scope of powers of the appellate authority under Section 128A of the Customs Act in addressing issues including limitation and natural justice.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The court held that it will not deviate from the practice of exhausting the alternate remedy of appeal under the statute and declined to entertain the petition, stating that "such contentions are best considered by the authorities under the Act."The court observed that the limitation bar issue and related contentions are matters "best considered by the appellate authority initially" and therefore refused to bypass statutory remedies.The court found that the rejection of the claim without considering merits or representations raised issues of natural justice, but these are within the appellate authority's jurisdiction to address under Section 128A.The appellate authority under Section 128A has "significantly broad" powers, including the ability to remit the matter back for fresh adjudication and to consider challenges based on failure of natural justice.The court directed that the petitioner's appeal be admitted and decided on merits without raising the issue of limitation, given the petition was filed within the limitation period for appeal.The appellate authority was directed to expedite the appeal and dispose of it within four months from institution, considering the RoDTEP scheme's purpose to incentivise exporters and the petitioner's bona fide conduct.

RATIONALE:

The court applied the statutory framework under the Customs Act, particularly Sections 128 and 128A, which provide for an appellate remedy with broad powers to review and remit matters for fresh adjudication.The court emphasized the principle of exhausting alternate statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction, consistent with established legal practice.The court recognized the importance of the RoDTEP scheme as an incentive for exporters but maintained adherence to procedural safeguards and statutory appeal mechanisms.No dissent or doctrinal shift was noted; the ruling reaffirmed the established approach that limitation and merit-based issues in customs matters are primarily for the appellate authority to decide.

---