2023 (2) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Customs) COMMON ORDER By consent of both the parties, these writ petitions have been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. Mr.T.Ramesh Kutty, learned Senior Standing Counsel (Customs) accepts notice on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4. 3. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders passed by the first respondent under Rule 7A of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995, rejecting the petitioner's request for claiming duty drawback as per the provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the petitioner has not satisfactorily established the reasons for delay in filing the duty drawback claim. 4. Heard Mr.B.Satish Sundar, lea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the aforementioned Rule. The petitioner had filed duty drawback claim only on 27.12.2019. Since the petitioner could not file the duty drawback claim within the stipulated period as fixed under Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rule, he had sought for relaxation as per Rule 7A of the said Rule on 18.06.2020 before the 1st respondent (Central Government). Rule 7A of the aforementioned Rule reads as follows: "7A. Power to relax: If the Central Government is satisfied that in relation to the export of any goods, the exporter or his authorised agent has, for reasons beyond his control, failed to comply with any of the provisions of these rules, and has thus been entitled to drawback, it may, after considering the representation, if any,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fting of the petitioner's premises were also submitted to the first respondent. According to the petitioner, despite establishing before the first respondent the unavoidable circumstances, which led to the petitioner not filing duty drawback claim within the prescribed time, by total non application of mind to the same, the impugned orders have been passed. (c) The petitioner has also relied upon various decisions before the first respondent, which are mentioned hereunder, in support of their case that they are entitled for relaxation as per the rule 7A of the 1995 rules: a. 2003 (156) ELT 841 (Cal) - para 21,23,24, 27 and 33 b. 2010 (255) ELT 226 (Kar) as affirmed by Supreme Court in 2010 (255) ELT A46 (SC) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anding Counsel for the respondents cannot rely upon the documents filed along with these writ petitions, that too, when the first respondent has not considered the same on merits in the impugned orders, which is a cryptic and non-speaking order. Any improvement of the impugned order cannot be made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents before this Court is rejected. 9. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has satisfied all the statutory requirements for claiming duty drawback as per the provisions under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. When the petitioner has given detailed reasons as to why they were unable to file the duty drawback....