GORDON WOODROFFE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge whereby the learned single dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

(2.) APPELLANT is a registered company engaged in the field of export of finished leather. The appellant had taken the benefits of the "Drawback" scheme (in short "the scheme") floated by the Central Government under the provisions of the Indian Customs Act (in short "the Act"). The scheme was introduced in the year 1971 and for that purpose rules were framed, known as Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 (in short "the Rules"). Under the scheme, there was a provision for refund of excise and customs duties levied on materials used in the manufacture of the goods which are exported. There were two kinds of drawbacks contemplated in the scheme. The first was All Industry Rate, otherwise known as General Drawback, under which the exporters were paid drawback on the raw materials used in the manufacture of the exported goods. Under the second category, viz. Brand Rate Drawback, the drawbacks were allowed against particular branded items and the percentage of the drawback would be higher. These drawbacks used to be fixed every year by the Central Government.

(3.) BY filing the counter-affidavits, the respondents had justified the action taken against the petitioner and had pleaded that wide-spread irregularities were found particularly in respect of the finished leather exporters who had not furnished correct details in regard to the consumption of inputs and the data regarding the consumption of inputs was inflated with the sole purpose of claiming excessive drawbacks and, therefore, the matter was investigated and on the basis of the report received from the Assistant Director, D.R.I., through the Collector of Customs, the three brand rate letters granted to the petitioner were withdrawn. The Department, pointed out that consumption of chemicals, as per the bill of materials used, appeared to have been worked out on the basis of unit area of leather of 1000 sq.ft. However, no documentary evidence was produced to prove this pattern of consumption. It was pointed out that no records were produced to show how much raw materials had been used for finished leather exclusively meant for export and for domestic consumption. It was pointed out that there were different varieties of leathers and as such different patterns of consumption depending upon the size, thickness, quality, etc. There was no evidence regarding the consumption of the raw materials for these different patterns. The details regarding the consumption of raw materials were sought to be checked vide stock card/ bin card. However, the exporters had failed to produce the said documents for proving the actual consumption of the raw materials.