GORDON WOODROFFE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is said to have been founded in the year 1868 as a trading venture. THEy are engaged in the export of high quality finished leather. THE Government of India introduced a scheme of duty drawback in respect of customs and excise duties paid on materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported. THE said scheme was given a statutory character by the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called as the Drawback Rules). Rule 3 of the Drawback Rules provides for the allowance of drawback on the export of goods specified in Schedule II of the Drawback Rules at such rates as may be determined by the Central Government. THE Central Government considers the average rates of duties prevailing at the industry level and fixes the rate, which is called as "All Industry Rate". Rule 7 of the Drawback Rules says that where the manufacturer finds that the rate fixed by the Central Government under Rule 3 of the Drawback Rules is low and is less than three-fourth of the duties paid on the materials or components used for the production or manufacture of the goods, the manufacturer may apply for fixing an appropriate amount or rate of drawback, stating all the relevant facts. On such application, the Central Government conducts an enquiry and allows payment of drawback at such other rates, as may be determined by the Government. This is called the brand rate in common parlance. During the years 1979-82, 1982-83 and 1983-85, the petitioner found that the All Industry Rate was very low compared to the duties paid on the materials by the petitioner. THEy, therefore, applied on 5-10-1981 for the period from 1-6-1979 to 31-5-1982, on 26-7-1982 for the period from 1-6-1982 to 31-5-1983, on 20-8-1983 for the period from 1-6-1983 to 31-5-1984 and 18-7-1984 for the period from 1-6-1984 to 31-5-1985.

(2.) THE petitioner had to send a reminder on 27-11-1984 and the Central Government directed the petitioner to contact the fourth respondent for verification of the data and the documents filed by the petitioner. For such verification, by order, dated 28-5-1985, different rates of drawback were allowed. So far as the petitioner is concerned for the said period a total sum of Rs. 28, 63, 726.97 p. was allowed for the period 1979 to 1985. Out of the said duty drawback, a sum of Rs. 18, 60, 018.77 p. was towards customs duty and the balance towards excise duty.

(3.) THE process of re-verification commenced with a letter, dated 11-3-1988. THE respondents also proceeded to recover the entire sum of Rs. 28, 10, 149.35 p. paid to the petitioner as drawback for the period from 1-6-1979 to 31-5-1985. Since the said amount is being withheld, the petitioner has been agitating for an appropriate opportunity to reconsider the entire issue. By a letter, dated 23-10-1990, the petitioner was advised to meet the third respondent on 23-11-1990. By a communication, dated 12-12-1990, the petitioner was advised that they were not entitled to the brand rate for the years 1979-1985. THE petitioner submitted an Appeal on 13-3-1991, but there has been no reply. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition, seeking for the issuance of a writ ofcertiorarifiedmandamusto quash the order, dated 18-12-1990 and the connected order dated 9-2-1988 and to direct the respondents to release the total amount of duty drawback to the extent of Rs. 28, 10, 149.35 p. for the period from 1-6-1979 to 31-5-1985.