2025 (10) TMI 189 - HC - Customs

Leave granted to amend petitions; show-cause notices and original orders set aside; matters remanded for merits decision on drawback claims

Karuna Sachin Deora, Sachin Chandraprakash Deora, M/s. Virosh Exports LLP & ors., Sagar Bhanushali, Vardh Exim LLP & Anr. Versus Union of India and ors.

HC granted leave to amend petitions to challenge original orders and directed amendment forthwith. Noting that a Delhi HC decision had struck down the ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to SCN - Seeking leave to amend the Petitions to challenge the orders in the original made - validity of CBIC clarification dated 25 September 2020 - HELD THAT:- The Petitioners are granted leave to amend the Petitions to challenge the orders in original, where such orders have already been passed. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. In the case of Aims Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. [2025 (2) TMI 596 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court struck down the clarification dated 25 September 2020. The show-cause notices, based on the same, were consequently struck down, as they were premised on the impugned clarification. The Union of India challenged the Delhi High Court’s decision in Aims Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. [2025 (2) TMI 596 - DELHI HIGH COURT] before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, by order [2025 (7) TMI 1903 - SC ORDER], the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions by observing that the Hon’ble Supreme Court found no good reason to interfere with the common impugned order passed by the High Court. The parties are relegated to avail themselves of the alternate remedy. However, in this case, it is not entirely sure whether the Appellate Authority will be able to strike down the CBIC clarification dated 25 September 2020, based on which the impugned orders in the original have been made. Secondly, since the impugned circular has already been struck down by the Delhi High Court and the Special Leave Petitions against it have also been dismissed, this is not a fit case to relegate the Petitioners to avail of an alternate remedy. The impugned show cause notices and the impugned orders in the original are set aside, and the matters are remanded to the adjudicating authorities for deciding the Petitioners’ drawback claims in accordance with law and on their own merits as expeditiously as possible, but after taking cognisance of the position that the impugned clarification dated 25 September 2020 stands struck down. Application disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the impugned CBIC clarification dated 25 September 2020 (the 'Clarification') is legally sustainable when it forms the sole basis for issuance of show-cause notices and orders in original for recovery of drawback. 2. Whether show-cause notices and orders in original premised wholly on a Clarification that has been judicially disapproved must be quashed and set aside. 3. Whether, notwithstanding availability of an alternate statutory appellate remedy against orders in original, the Court should remit the matters to adjudicating authorities for fresh consideration in light of the Clarification being struck down. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of the CBIC Clarification dated 25 September 2020 as basis for recovery of drawback Legal framework: Drawback claims and recovery proceedings are governed by statutory scheme prescribing eligibility and conditions for grant and recovery of drawback; administrative clarifications may guide assessment but cannot override statutory mandate or be contrary to law. Precedent Treatment: The Court followed the reasoning of a coordinate High Court decision which struck down the Clarification; that earlier decision was treated as authoritative for present matters. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the impugned show-cause notices and orders in original were premised entirely on the Clarification. Where an administrative clarification is held to be legally unsustainable, actions founded solely on that Clarification lack lawful foundation. The Court therefore applied the principle that subordinate instruments or administrative directions cannot be used to create new liability when they are invalid as a matter of law. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an administrative clarification that is struck down cannot serve as valid basis for recovery of drawback and actions founded solely on it are liable to be quashed. Obiter - none relied upon for this core conclusion. Conclusions: The Clarification cannot support recovery proceedings in these matters; show-cause notices and orders in original issued wholly on that basis are legally unsustainable. Issue 2 - Effect of judicial striking down of the Clarification on pending recovery proceedings Legal framework: When a judicial decision invalidates an administrative instrument, consequential actions taken under that instrument must be examined; statutory adjudicating authorities are required to decide claims/controversies in accordance with law and judicial pronouncements. Precedent Treatment: The Court followed the treatment adopted by the earlier High Court decision which resulted in striking down of the Clarification and consequent invalidation of notices grounded on it. Interpretation and reasoning: Because the impugned recovery actions were wholly premised on the Clarification, the proper and effective remedy is to quash those actions and to remit the matters to adjudicating authorities to reconsider the underlying drawback claims on their merits and in light of the judicial invalidation of the Clarification. The Court emphasized that remand is limited to fresh adjudication consistent with law and the factual record; it did not direct grant of substantive relief on merits. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where enforcement action rests entirely on a struck down administrative clarification, that enforcement action must be set aside and the matter remitted for adjudication in accordance with law as interpreted by the Court. Obiter - the scope of fresh adjudication (e.g., issues other than the Clarification) was not expanded beyond necessary direction to proceed in accordance with law. Conclusions: The show-cause notices and orders in original based exclusively on the Clarification are quashed and set aside; matters remanded to adjudicating authorities to determine drawback claims on merits and in accordance with law, taking into account that the Clarification stands invalidated. Issue 3 - Appropriateness of refusing relegation to alternate appellate remedy Legal framework: Courts ordinarily relegate litigants to statutory alternate remedies (appeal/revision) where such remedies are efficacious; however, exceptions exist where such relegation would be futile or unjust given the legal posture or where a higher judicial pronouncement has removed the legal basis of impugned action. Precedent Treatment: The Court declined to follow the usual practice of relegation to appeal because the impugned Clarification has been judicially disapproved and therefore the appellate process could be rendered ineffectual or unnecessarily duplicative in the circumstances. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered whether the appellate authority could realistically address and set aside the Clarification which was the foundation of the impugned orders. Given the judicial invalidation of the Clarification, the Court held that insisting on exhaustion of the alternate remedy would not be appropriate and could cause delay or procedural inefficiency. The Court limited its intervention to remanding for fresh adjudication rather than deciding substantive entitlement to drawback, thereby balancing respect for statutory appellate routes with relief against actions based on invalid administrative guidance. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the legal foundation of enforcement action has been judicially struck down, it is appropriate in the Court's discretion to decline relegation to the alternate remedy and to quash and remit for fresh adjudication. Obiter - the decision does not formulate a general rule displacing appellate remedies in other contexts. Conclusions: Relegation to the alternate remedy was refused as inappropriate in the circumstances; instead, matters were remitted for adjudication in accordance with the legal position that the Clarification is invalid. Relief and consequential directions Interpretation and reasoning: In light of the foregoing, the Court made the Rule absolute insofar as it set aside the impugned show-cause notices and orders in original, granted leave to amend pleadings where necessary to challenge orders already passed, and remitted matters for adjudication on merits, directing expeditious consideration while recognizing that the Clarification stands struck down. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the appropriate remedial order on the facts is quashal of notices/orders founded exclusively on an invalid administrative clarification and remand for fresh adjudication consistent with law; additional directions (leave to amend, expeditious disposal) are ancillary to that relief. Obiter - no costs were ordered, which is discretionary and fact-sensitive. Conclusions: The impugned Clarification cannot operate as the basis for recovery; the impugned notices and orders are set aside; litigants may amend to challenge existing orders; adjudicating authorities shall decide drawback claims afresh and expeditiously, taking cognizance that the Clarification has been struck down; no order as to costs.