CHEER SAGAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition is preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 15 -12 -2009, passed by the Joint Commissioner to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi, who as the Revisional Authority while disposing of the revision application filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Air -Cargo Exports, NCH, New Delhi under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, has upheld the order passed by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner (Drawback). The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 26 -9 -2012 passed by the respondent No. 3 by which the application preferred by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing supplementary drawback claim has been dismissed. The brief facts as has been gathered on perusal of the impugned order and on the basis of the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, are that the petitioner is a partnership firm duly incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and is dealing in the business of import and export of readymade garments since 1991. The brief controversy, which has been raised by filing instant writ petition, is that during February and April, 2006, the petitioner firm had exported certain goods via air shipment to Japan & the Netherlands after submitting all the requisite documents with a bona fide intention to receive custom and excise duty drawback facility as per Customs Rules, 1995.

(2.) FINDING some flaw in the said claim, the duty drawback and excise portion of duty drawback was denied on eleven shipping bills. The Assistant Commissioner (drawback) originally conveyed to the petitioner that eleven shipping bills were found to be time barred as they were not submitted within three months from the date of payment of the original drawback. It also expressed that the reason, if any, shown for condonation of delay, had not been found justifiable. As such, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 4 -7 -2008 allowed the appeal of the petitioner by observing, inter alia, that the reasons given by the petitioner are strong and sufficient enough to condone the delay in filing the supplementary claims and direction was given to the adjudicating authority to dispose of the supplementary drawback claims on merits.

(3.) SUBSEQUENT to that, an application/representation dated 14 -2 -2011 was moved to the revisional authority who decided the revision for condoning the delay in filing the supplementary drawback claim as according to the petitioner, there were certain mistakes. However, the revisional authority did not accept the contention of the petitioner and vide order dated 26 -9 -2012 rejected the application. Both the orders dated 15 -12 -2009 and 26 -9 -2012 have been assailed by the petitioner by way of filing the instant writ petition.