M.A. Wajid & Co. Vs The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs (BRC-DBK) (Madras High Court)
In the case of M.A. Wajid & Co. vs The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs (BRC-DBK), the petitioner, engaged in the export of footwear, availed duty draw back, contingent upon the realization of export proceeds within a stipulated time frame. The petitioner asserted that the export proceeds were indeed realized and backed this claim with pertinent documents like bank realization certificates. However, the petitioner received a communication dated 29.11.2023 referring to an order in original dated 26.12.2022, which they didn’t possess. Consequently, on 03.02.2024, the petitioner requested a certified copy of the aforementioned order.
In the court proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel presented documents from pages 19 to 59 of the typed set, supporting the contention that export proceeds were indeed realized, and pertinent documentation existed. It was emphasized that the petitioner had not been served a copy of the order in original dated 26.12.2022.
On behalf of the respondents, Rajinith Pathyil, learned senior standing counsel, accepted the notice and contended that providing another copy of the order in original wasn’t obligatory if it had already been served on the petitioner as per the Customs Act, 1962.
The relief sought by the petitioner was a direction to furnish a certified copy of the order in original. Even if the respondents had previously served a certified copy on the petitioner, they argued that providing another copy wouldn’t be precluded, and the respondents could still furnish evidence of previous service if necessary.
