Case Law Details
Noorbudeen Shajahan Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs (CH-IV) (Madras High Court)
In the case of Noorbudeen Shajahan Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs (CH-IV), the Madras High Court quashed an order dated 27.03.2021 for the recovery of duty drawback from the petitioner. The recovery was premised on the alleged failure to provide proof of export proceeds realization for certain shipping bills. The petitioner argued that the order was invalidly served at an outdated address despite having updated the address with the relevant authorities. The court noted that the order and notices for personal hearings had indeed been sent to the outdated address, raising questions about the validity of the service.
The petitioner further presented evidence of export proceeds realization and was directed to submit relevant documents to substantiate the entitlement to the duty drawback within two weeks. The court set aside the impugned order and instructed the Customs Department to re-evaluate the case upon receiving the representation, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 27.03.2021 whereby the recovery of drawback which has been availed by the petitioner was ordered on the premise that the petitioner had failed to furnish the proof of realization of export proceeds.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been served on the petitioner at the old adress viz., No.9, Lakshmipuram, 2nd Street, Villivakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 049 and thus the service is invalid. It is then submitted that the petitioner had shifted from the said address to a New address viz., No.3, Thozuthaur, Chennamapattai, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu 631 209. The above change in address was duly intimated to the Office of Zonal Director General of Foreign Trade, which in fact is reflected in the bill of entry and also uploaded in the IEC portal. Thus, the impugned order having been sent to the old address cannot be stated to be valid service.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that a Show Cause Notice was issued to the exporter on 19.09.2017, followed by personal hearings offered on 24.03.2021, 25.03.2021 and 17.03.2021.
4. To a pointed question as to whether the notices of personal hearing and the impugned order were sent to the old address or new address, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that they were sent to the old address, which is also evident from a perusal of the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would make reference to the statement of bank realization to submit that as a matter of fact, in respect of the above mentioned shipping bills, the export proceeds have been realized. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner may produce the said statement, within a period of two weeks and the same would be considered and orders would be passed in accordance with law.
6. In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to submit their representation along with relevant documents in support of the petitioner’s entitlement to the benefit of duty drawbacks within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such a representation is filed, the same would be considered and orders would be passed in accordance with law after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
