AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during the year 1973 and filed drawback claims and sought that they may be kept pending till the Government of India fixed specific drawback rates for their export. On 08.04.1975, the Central Government issued notification fixing the drawback rates for the item exported by the petitioner. After issuance of the said notification, the petitioner filed an application dated 20.06.1975, under the Customs Act for payment of the drawback claims by reviewing the earlier order. However, the same was rejected by order dated 20.06.1975. Once again, the petitioner filed a fresh claim before the Assistant Collector of Customs on 23.04.1976, for review of the earlier order and payment of the drawback claims. A reminder was sent on 25.06.1976. Since no action was taken on the reminder, the petitioner filed Writ Petition Nos.2446 of 1978 and etc., batch. In the said batch, W.P.No.2446 of 1978 was for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to quash the order passed by the Collector of Customs in Order No.140/75-DBK as being illegal. In the other writ petitions, the petitioner sought for issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct respondents 2 and 3 therein to pay specified amount being claimed as drawback ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w back amount to the petitioner in each of the writ petitions without any further delay. The rule nisi is made absolute in all the writ petitions except WP.Nos.2446 and 3070 of 1978. WP.No.3070 of 1978 is dismissed as superfluous. As regards WP.No.2446 of 1978, which is for issue of a writ of certiorari, I do not think any rate order is needed since the claim made by the petitioner has been answered in favour of the petitioner in the writ petitions. Hence, WP.No.2446 of 1978 is also dismissed as superfluous. There will be no order as to costs in all these writ petitions." (emphasis supplied) 3. In the above order, Writ Petition No.3070 of 1978 was dismissed on the ground it is superfluous, because another writ petition for the same relief was filed in W.P.No.3067 of 1978. The reason for closing the other writ petition viz., W.P.No.2446 of 1978 is on account of the orders passed in the other writ petitions. Thus, net result was, the respondent was directed to satisfy themselves as regards the quantum claimed towards the drawback amount in the schedule attached to the writ petitions and pay drawback dues to the writ petitioners as expeditiously as possible. After the abov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....back register, if available pertaining to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. It is also made clear that if the respondent requires the copies of the registers of the petitioner for settling the draw back amount, the petitioner should be given an opportunity for producing the same and the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on the materials placed by the petitioner. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, WMP.No.15005 of 1992 is closed. No costs." 6. Subsequently, there has been correspondence between the petitioner and the Department, and ultimately on 17.11.2000, a notice was issued to the petitioner once again requesting them to submit relevant documents that may be available with reference to the rest of the claims, for which the Court had issued direction to the respondent and an opportunity of personal hearing was granted. The petitioner sent a reply dated 22.12.2000, stating that the fact of submission of shipping bills at the time of clearance of the goods and subsequently at the time of submitting the claim for drawback as also the cor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtment. The Department admitted the fact that the documents are not traceable. When the petitioner was directed to produce the documents, they were also in the position because, at the time when the claims were made in the year 1978, all original documents were submitted. Therefore, the petitioner had produced such of those documents, which were available with them and most of which are found mentioned in writ petition and counter affidavit filed by the Department. 11. To be noted, the respondent, after the direction issued by this Court in the writ petitions, which were disposed of by order dated 30.09.1982, had settled part of the claims, which were made by the petitioner and covered in Writ Petition Nos.3030, 3062, 3066, 3068, 3071, 3071, 3072 and 3093 of 1978. Thus, having taken such a stand, if the Department is to reject the remaining claims, the reasons for rejection should be on merits. However, the respondent has refused to sanction the remaining amount on the ground that no documents are available with them. Though in the earlier writ petitions, direction was issued directing the petitioner to produce whatever available documents with them, they have responded to the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le with the Department. This can hardly be a reason to reject the petitioner's claim. However, this Court adds a word of caution that merely because records are not available with the Department, the Department should not concede to the petitioner's claim. The Court has been careful while making the observation in the preceding paragraphs about the petitioner's entitlement because of the fact that the respondents themselves have admitted in the counter affidavits filed in the earlier writ petitions as well as in this writ petition admitting the exports made by the petitioner. Therefore, if there was any other material to either dispute the export or the quantity, the respondents would have done so at the first instance when the writ petitions were filed in the year 1978. To be noted that the respondent filed separate counter affidavits for all the 31 writ petitions. Therefore, if there was a mistake committed by the petitioner, the respondent would have pointed out in the counter, as they had done in one of the writ petitions. Hence the averment made in the counter affidavits filed by the respondent in the writ petitions filed during the year 1978 amounts to admission o....