Case Law Details
Optiemus Infracom Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund) & Anr (Delhi High Court)
Introduction: The case of Optiemus Infracom Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs revolves around the issue of crediting customs refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund without providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a hearing. The Delhi High Court has intervened, remanding the matter for re-adjudication.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of Dispute: The petitioner challenges the Orders in Original dated 24.07.2023, where the Principal Commissioner of Customs allowed the refund applications but directed the amounts to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund based on the principle of unjust enrichment.
2. Legal Arguments: The petitioner contends that the orders contain apparent errors as no opportunity for a personal hearing was granted, and the documents submitted were misinterpreted. The discrepancy regarding the customs duty recoverable for the financial year 2014-2015 is highlighted, which was erroneously stated as ‘NIL’ despite evidence to the contrary.
3. Judicial Intervention: The Delhi High Court acknowledges the errors and remands the matter for re-adjudication. It emphasizes the importance of providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing to address the discrepancies. The court also directs the competent authority to consider the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the Court, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal principles.
4. Remedial Measures: The court sets aside the impugned orders and instructs the competent authority to re-adjudicate the issue of alleged unjust enrichment and appropriation of the amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund. The petitioner is to be granted a personal hearing before passing the order, ensuring procedural fairness.
5. Timely Resolution: The court imposes a timeline of six weeks for the completion of the re-adjudication process, underscoring the importance of expeditious resolution and adherence to legal procedures.
Conclusion: The judgment in Optiemus Infracom Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs underscores the significance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in adjudicating matters related to customs refunds. By remanding the case for re-adjudication and ensuring the petitioner’s right to a personal hearing, the Delhi High Court reaffirms the importance of due process in administrative proceedings. This ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of individuals and upholding the rule of law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner impugns Orders in Original all dated 24.07.2023 (5) whereby the Principal Commissioner of Customs has though allowed the applications for refund, however directed that the amounts be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund applying the principle of unjust enrichment.
Transfer of Custom Duty refund to Consumer Welfare Fund
2. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the order suffers from ex-facie errors apparent on the record. He submits that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner and the documents filed by the petitioner with the Principal Commissioner of Customs were misread and misconstrued. He refers to para 11 of the order where for the financial year 2014-2015, under the heading customs duty refund/receivable amount shown is ‘NIL’.
3. Learned counsel submits that the same is contradicted by the balance sheet on record of the said authority which clearly shown that a sum of Rs. 8,934.88 lakhs was shown as custom duty recoverable.
4. Learned senior counsel submits that had the petitioner been given an opportunity of personal hearing, petitioner would have been able point out to the said error. He submits that there are other errors also that the orders suffer from and in case an opportunity is granted to the petitioner, petitioner would be able to point out the discrepancies.
5. He further submits that without prejudice to stand of the department the authority has erred in not noticing the ratio of the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Telecare Network India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2019 (368) ELT 36 (Del.) which squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
6. Learned counsel for respondent under instructions submits that without prejudice to the stand of the department. The department is willing to give a fresh opportunity to the petitioner.
7. In view of the above the impugned orders dated 24.07.2023 are set aside to the limited extent and the matter is remitted to the competent authority for re-adjudication of the issue of alleged unjust enrichment and appropriation of the amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Section 27 (2) of the Custom Act 1962.
8. The competent authority shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner prior to passing the order, with regard to credit of the amount in Consumer Welfare Refund.
9. The exercise be completed within a period of six weeks.
Author Bio
