A. Kiyasdeen Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Material Facts
The petitioner, sole proprietor of M/s. Amrush Oversees, was engaged in the export business, which was closed in 2011 due to poor business activities. During the period from 13.11.2008 to 19.02.2010, the petitioner exported goods and availed duty drawback amounting to ₹38,77,104. A show cause notice dated 22.03.2017 was issued proposing recovery of the drawback under Rule 16(A)(2)(3) of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, along with applicable interest, and proposing imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that proof of realization of export proceeds had not been produced. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 20.03.2021 and the consequential communication dated May 2022 sought recovery of the drawback and imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000.
Procedural History
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 20.03.2021 passed by the second respondent and the consequential communication issued in May 2022 by the first respondent before the Madras High Court.
Legal Issues
- Whether recovery proceedings under Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules could be initiated after a prolonged delay where no limitation period is prescribed.
- Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Whether the absence of allegations of fraud or suppression affected the validity of the delayed recovery proceedings.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
- Rule 16(A)(2)(3) of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995.
- Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Amendment Rules, 2006.
- Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Petitioner’s Submissions
