9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'FERA' for short) to deal with the export documents of the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner exported goods and claimed drawback concession U/S. 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same has been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner. After sanction of drawback money, the petitioner has failed to realise the sale proceeds within the prescribed period. It is not in dispute that the sale proceeds in respect of the goods exported had not been received within the stipulated time (six months) provided under 'FERA' and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'FEMA' for short). Even thereafter also sale proceeds are not received by petitioner. Therefore, a show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding U/S. 18(2), (3) r/w. Sections 51 and 52 of the 'FERA' was concluded in favour of the petitioner and the Enforcement Directorate while dropping the proceeding has observed that "in an helpless situation, the petitioner was unable to realise the export proceeds". Based on the said order passed by the Enforcement Directorate dated 19-4-2000, the petitioner contends that it is not a fit case for recovery of drawback amounts paid to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in spite of his best efforts he could not realise the export proceeds, and that therefore, should not be penalised. He further submits that the Central Government ought to have considered the prayer of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U/S. 50 and 51 of the 'FERA' 1973 are dropped, the same will not vitiate or affect the proceedings arising under the provisions of Section 75(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 r/w. Rule 16A of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the export proceeds in respect of the goods ex ported by the petitioner had not been received within the stipulated time i.e., within six months and even thereafter. However, the same was sought to be explained by contending that due to the negligence on the part of the banker i.e., Canara Bank Overseas Branch, the sale proceeds were not received. The said contention of the petitioner was not found favour with either by the Appellate Authority or by the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs relating to imposition of penalty under the provisions of FERA are dropped, the present proceedings relating to recovery of drawback amounts paid to the petitioner cannot be dropped. Under such circumstances, the Authorities concerned have rightly proceeded to recover the drawback amount paid to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be id that the impugned orders are unjustified or illegal. On the other hand, the orders impugned in this writ petition are perfectly legal and justified. 7. The next contention of the petitioner that the Central Government s not considered his request to relax/exempt him from re-paying the draw ck amount under Rule 17 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
