Drawback claims cannot be denied by probing consignee receipt once export clearance conditions are satisfied.

A writ petition challenging a drawback rejection was maintainable despite an alternative statutory remedy because writ jurisdiction may be exercised for jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, and where the impugned order was passed pursuant to earlier court directions. On drawback under the customs law, once goods were entered for export and cleared for exportation, the authority had to confine itself to the statutory conditions and could not reject the claim by enquiring whether the consignee received the goods or by treating the export as fraudulent on matters beyond the statute. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, and the drawback claim had to be reconsidered afresh within the statutory parameters.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy, and (ii) whether the authority, while considering a claim for drawback under Section 75, could reject the claim on the ground that the consignee did not receive the goods and that the export was fraudulent.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy

Analysis: The availability of an appellate remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. A writ may be entertained where there is a question of jurisdiction or where the impugned order is said to have been passed in breach of natural justice. The Court also found that the impugned order had been passed in purported compliance with earlier directions of the Court, so the matter called for examination by the same Court.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and was rightly entertained.

Issue (ii): whether the authority, while considering a claim for drawback under Section 75, could reject the claim on the ground that the consignee did not receive the goods and that the export was fraudulent

Analysis: Drawback is governed by the statutory conditions in Section 75, namely that the goods must have been entered for export and an order permitting clearance and loading for exportation must have been made under Section 51. Once those conditions are satisfied, the authority is not required to investigate the private dispute between exporter and consignee or to decide whether the consignee actually received the goods. On the facts, the goods had been cleared for export and the export value had been realised through the letter of credit. The rejection rested on matters beyond the scope of Section 75 and on materials that did not justify a finding of fraud.

Conclusion: The rejection of drawback on the ground of non-receipt by the consignee was unsustainable and the matter had to be reconsidered within the statutory parameters.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the drawback claim was directed to be reconsidered afresh on the footing that export had taken place, with the authority confined to the statutory conditions governing drawback.

Ratio Decidendi: In a drawback claim, once export goods have been entered for export and cleared for exportation under the Customs law, the authority cannot deny drawback by enquiring into the consignee's receipt of the goods or by travelling beyond the statutory limits of Section 75.

---