9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Challenge to the demand notice issued against the assessee for duty drawback claim. 2. Review order passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 129D(2) of the Customs Act. 3. Questioning the review order's validity under Section 129D(5) of the Customs Act. 4. Tenability of the petition based on the review order. 5. Examination of the correctness of duty drawback received by the assessee. 6. Deficiencies noticed in the shipping bills and declarations by respondent No. 2. 7. Requirement of prevailing market price, specifications, and class of exported goods for duty drawback claim. 8. Interpretation of the review order and its compliance with Section 75 of the Customs Act. 9. Dismissal of the petition and directives for expeditious disposal of the pending appeal. Analysis: 1. The petitioner-assessee exported goods exempted from duty and claimed duty drawback. A demand notice was issued against the assessee for alleged non-compliance with statutory provisions. The assessee challenged this notice in a writ petition, leading to the filing of an appeal, which is pending. 2. The revenue did not initially invoke powers under Section 129DA before issuing the demand notice. Subsequently, a review order was passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 129D(2), leading to an appeal by the revenue, which is also pending. The review order was challenged in the present petition before the High Court. 3. The main contention was whether the review order under Section 129D(2) was valid, considering the provisions of Section 129D(5) of the Customs Act, which sets limitations on certain decisions or orders related to duty rates or goods valuation. 4. The assessee argued that the impugned order was without legal authority, making the appeal filed by the revenue untenable. Hence, the assessee approached the High Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order. 5. The key issue was the correctness of the duty drawback claimed by the assessee, focusing on the compliance with Section 75 of the Customs Act regarding mandatory requirements for duty drawback claims on exported goods. 6. Respondent No. 2 identified deficiencies in the shipping bills and declarations related to market value, specifications, and declarations of the exported goods. A review order was passed directing an appeal for further determination. 7. The Court emphasized the importance of verifying prevailing market prices, specifications, and class of exported goods for duty drawback claims. The review aimed to ensure compliance with statutory requirements. 8. The Court concluded that the review order was intended to verify compliance with Section 75 of the Customs Act and did not relate to duty rates or goods valuation issues. The assessee was directed to face the statutory investigation and prove compliance with the law. 9. The petition was dismissed, the interim order was vacated, and respondent No. 4 was directed to expedite the pending appeal within six months. An oral application for continuation of the stay order was rejected.
|
