ERICA ENTERPRISES Vs. ASSTT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was dismissed in default on 7.3.2006. The present application has been filed for the restoration of the said writ petition stating that matter was not noted in the list and since the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present in Delhi, no representation was made on his behalf for seeking adjournment. An affidavit of the clerk of the learned counsel has been filed. In view of the reasons stated in the said application, this application is allowed and the writ petition is restored. This writ petition challenges a notice dated 23.10.1990 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund) requiring the petitioner to attend a hearing together with the documentary evidence in support of his claim for a refund of Rs. 1,13,293.20 along with interest.

(2.) At the time of filing the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner was that Customs authorities had no power to demand proof from the petitioner for having not passed on the burden of customs duty in order to be entitled for the refund. However, during the pendency of the writ petition the Customs Act,1962 was amended by the Excise and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991. As per the amended Section 27(1) the application for refund has to be accompanied by

(3.) In view of this development, this Court on 22.10.1991 directed the concerned officer to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's application for refund of customs duty. Pursuant thereto, by an order dated 27.11.1991, the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund) passed an order holding that no evidence had been produced by the petitioner to confirm that the duty burden had not been passed to the consumers/buyers. Accordingly the Assistant Collector Customs (Refund) directed the refund amount to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund.