TATA INFOTECH LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 seeks a direction to the respondent, namely, Collector of Customs, New Delhi to refund a amount of Rs.7,08,050/- along with interest thereon.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts, leading to these proceedings are as follows: The petitioner imported computer software vide Bills of Entry Nos.262707 and 262715, both dated 12 November 1990 and 270805 dated 21 December 1990, valued at Rs.28,30,248/-. On 7 February 1991 the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence searched the office premises of the petitioner and detained the said software. The software was formally seized on 12 February 1991 under a reasonable belief that these were liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act'). The seized goods were released on 19 December 1991 on provisional basis against a surety and a bank guarantee. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 31 July 1991 to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Act and why penalty under Section 112 of the Act be not imposed. The petitioner was also required to show cause as to why a customs duty amounting to Rs.6,95,933.94/- be not levied on the subject goods. Upon consideration of the reply to the show cause notice, filed by the petitioner, the respondent vide his order dated 25 February 1997 held that the subject goods were liable to be confiscated; the petitioner was liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,60,000/- in lieu of confiscation, in addition to the customs duty amounting to Rs.6,95,933.94/-. A further penalty of Rs.2,50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Act was imposed on the petitioner besides personal penalties on its business manager. It was directed that the said amounts be recovered in terms of the bond executed by the petitioner and by encashing the bank guarantee furnished. Accordingly, the bank guarantee in the amount of Rs.7,08,050/- was encashed by the respondent on 6 May 1997. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai (for short 'the Tribunal'). The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 21 December 1999. On receipt of the order of the Tribunal, vide its letter dated 27 April 2000, the petitioner requested the respondent to refund the said amount of Rs.7,08,050/- recovered from them on account of encashment of the bank guarantee. Almost after one year of the filing of the said application, vide their letter dated 22 January 2001 the office of the respondent required the petitioner to furnish evidence regarding deposit of Rs.7,08,050/- in customs account. As desired, vide letter dated 7 March 2001, the petitioner furnished a copy of the bank certificate issued by the State Bank of India dated 2 February 2001, certifying the encashment of bank guarantee issued on behalf of the petitioner, vide bank draft favouring Punjab National Bank A/c customs duty payable at New Delhi. Some other documents were also furnished along with the said letter. Nothing was heard from the respondent till 12 December 2001, when a letter was received from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) asking the petitioner to furnish the following documents:

(3.) We have heard Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Alakh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.