TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (2) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mponents, the petitioner pays the customs duty as applicable under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an exporter and the petitioner sells the computer system outside India and in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules, the petitioner made an application on 27th of June, 1989 before the Directorate of Drawback for the determination of the rate of drawback of duties of the customs paid in view of the export of certain computers manufactured by the petitioner-Company to the Sultanate of Oman during 1988; and in the said application, the petitioner also prayed for condonation of delay in filing the application as provided under the proviso given to Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules; and pursuant to the said application, the petitioner received a communication from the Directorate of Drawback directing it to produce the proof of the date of export and to furnish customs authentication of the same. According to the petitioner, the goods exported by the petitioner left India by an air craft belonging to Gulf Air; and M/s. Jet Air Pvt. Ltd., the General Sales Agents of the Gulf Air, had issued Transhipment Certificate i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) of Rule 6 of the Rules and if the application is filed beyond 60 days from the date of the export of the goods, under Rule 15 of the Rules, power is conferred on the Central Government to condone the delay irrespective of the period of delay. 4. Shri Sadashiva Reddy, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, resisted the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the order impugned does not suffer from any error which calls for interference by this Court. He pointed out that since it is not in dispute that the application was filed beyond 60 days from the date of the export, the Central Government was justified in law in taking the view that it has no power to condone the delay either under Rule 6 or Rule 7 of the Rules. He submits that there is no error in the finding recorded by the Central Government in the impugned order; and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the said order before this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He also drew my attention to paragraph 3 of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it is stated that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of these rules and has thus not been entitled to drawback, it may, after considering the representations, if any, made by such exporter or agent, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, exempt such exporter or agent from the provisions of such rules and allow drawback in respect of such goods." As can be seen from the proviso to Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules, if the Central Government is satisfied that the applicant has sufficient cause for the delay caused in not filing the application within 30 days from the date of the export and within another 30 days from the said 30 days, i.e., in all 60 days from the date of the export, it can condone the delay caused in filing the application filed seeking determination of the rate of drawback. However, Rule 15 of the Rules confers power on the Central Government, if it 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 the Rules, has not been entitled to such determination of rate of drawback, for reasons to be recorded in writing, exempt such exporter or agent from the provisions of the Rules and allow duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods exported on consideration of the representation made by an exporter on the merits of the claim made. As can be seen from the stand taken in the statement of objections, at Paragraph 3 of the statement of objections, it is stated that as a matter of practice and policy, relaxation under Rule 15 of the Rules is not accorded for condonation of delay in submission of the application beyond the period allowed. It is useful to extract Paragraph 3 of the statement of objections, which read as hereunder : "That with reference to the averments made in Para 7 of the petition, it is submitted that the petitioner had made an application to the Ministry to condone the delay by invoking Rule 15 as the delay exceeded the condonable period permissible under Rule 6/7 of the Drawback Rules. The request was examined by the Ministry. As a matter of practice and policy, relaxation under Rule 15 of the Drawback Rules is not accorded for condonation of delay in submission of the application in excess of the period, the Government is empowered to condone under Rule 6/7 of the Drawback Rules." Therefore, it is clear that though the power is conferred under Rule 15 of the Rules, as a matter of po....