Case Law Details
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.
Consequently, the court disposed of the case (W.P.No.11012 of 2024) by directing the respondents to provide a certified copy of the order in original dated 26.12.2022 to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of receiving the court’s order. No costs were imposed.
The case underscores the importance of procedural fairness and access to documentation in legal proceedings. Despite the possibility of a previous copy being served, the court upheld the petitioner’s right to access the necessary documents by mandating the provision of a certified copy. This ruling ensures transparency and fairness in the legal process, safeguarding the petitioner’s rights within the framework of the Customs Act, 1962.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner was engaged in the business of export of footwear. In relation thereto, the petitioner had availed of duty draw back subject to the condition that export proceeds are realized within the prescribed time limit. According to the petitioner, export proceeds were realized and relevant documents such as bank realization certificates were obtained. In those circumstances, the petitioner states that a communication dated 29.11.2023 was received referring to an order in original dated 26.12.2022. Upon receipt thereof, by letter dated 03.02.2024, the petitioner requested for a copy of the order in original since the petitioner did not have a copy of the same. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction for the issuance of such certified copy.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the documents placed on record in pages 19 to 59 of the typed set to establish that export proceeds were realized and that necessary documents in such regard are available. He further submits that the petitioner was not served with a copy of the order in original dated 26.12.2022.
3. Rajinith Pathyil, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice for the respondents. He submits that it is not necessary to provide another copy of the order in original if the same had already been served on the petitioner previously in accordance with the Customs Act, 1962.
4. The relief prayed for is limited to a direction to provide a certified copy of the order in original. Even if the respondent had previously served the certified copy on the petitioner, it is always open to the respondents to state that the certified copy was served on the petitioner earlier and provide evidence thereof. This will not stand in the way of the respondents providing another copy thereof to the petitioner.
5. Therefore, W.P.No.11012 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the respondents to provide a certified copy of the order in original dated 26.12.2022 to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Author Bio
