2018 (2) TMI 750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bject Bill of Entry, under the Customs Act, 1962, as confirmed by the second respondent - Tribunal. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the first respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 6,56,425/- and Rs. 7,92,165/- respectively already remitted, to them. 2. The case of the petitioner is that they are recognised as an Export House by the Government of India since 23-9-1999. They are engaged in the business of exporting garments. While so, they have been issued with two show cause notices dated 6-12-2001 calling upon them to show evidence that they have fulfilled Export Obligation in terms of the conditions of the Bond executed by them and in terms of the Customs Notification No. 30/97, under which, the imports were made by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry of Commerce, Chennai on 13-8-2002, as such, the petitioner was unable to produce the same before the Authority concerned within the time stipulated, in compliance with the export obligations. However, without considering the same, the Appellate Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal, rejected the appeals filed by the petitioner as time-barred and thereby, confirmed the orders-in-original passed by the first respondent, demanding differential duty imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel sought for permission from this Court to submit the redemption certificates before the first respondent for reconsideration of the issue involved. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision reported in 2014 (309) E.L.T. 431 (Ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a gap of about three years and attempted to file an appeal. Since, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), did not have the power to condone the delay, he rejected the appeal. The said order was confirmed by CESTAT on 18-9-2013. Thereafter, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the Order-in-Original. 5. Technically, the petitioner could not have maintained the writ petition in view of the fact that he had exhausted all his statutory remedies and those orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and CESTAT had already attained finality. 6. But, as I have stated earlier, this is a case where the very initiation of the proceedings, was completely arbitrary and faulty. The licence granted a ....