The duty drawback availed by the petitioner was required to be refunded as the export proceeds were not received, and the provisions of the Customs Act and Drawback Rules were applicable in determining the liability for refund.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 21.10.2021/22.10.2021 (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (the Revisional Authority), whereby the petitioner's revision application [case bearing F. No. 375/135/DBK/2018-RA captioned M/s Rangoli International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Export), ICD, Tughlakabad, Delhi], was rejected.

2. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by the demand for refund of the duty drawback amounting to Rs.43,03,415/- availed by the petitioner against goods exported during the period 03.05.2013 to 28.06.2013, along with interest.

3. The petitioner had exported goods to Dubai during the aforementioned period and had availed of duty drawback in respect of the said exports. Admittedly, the petitioner did not receive the export proceeds in foreign exchange against some of the shipments. In this context, the Customs Department issued a show cause cum demand notice dated 26.04.2016, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the amount of duty drawback aggregating Rs.43,03,415/- availed by it in respect of certain Shipping Bills (ten in number) as listed in the annexure to the notice, not be recovered in terms of the proviso to Sub-section (1) and Clause (ab) of Sub-section 2 of Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter `the Customs Act') read with Rule 16A of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 (hereafter `the Drawback Rules'). In addition, the petitioner was also called upon to show cause why penalty not be imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act.

4. It appears that the petitioner did not respond to the said show cause notice. The said show cause notice was adjudicated and the Adjudicating Authority passed an order dated 17.08.2016 confirming the demand of Rs.43,03,415/- along with interest on account of the duty drawback availed in respect of export shipments against which remittance in foreign exchange was not received. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed a penalty of an equivalent amount of Rs.43,05,415/- under Section 114 of the Customs Act.

5. A plain reading of the said order dated 17.08.2016 indicates that the petitioner had neither responded to the show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of a personal hearing. The petitioner claims that it did not receive the notices scheduling personal hearings.

6. Aggrieved by the order-in-original dated 17.08.2016, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The said appeal was rejected by an order-in-appeal dated 13.08.2018.

7. It was contended that the order-in-original dated 17.08.2016 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and no notice dated 15.07.2016 issued by the Adjudicating Authority granting a personal hearing was received by the appellant. The appellant also claimed that it had Bank Receipt Certificates (BRCs) evidencing receipt of export proceeds against some of the shipping bills as listed in the annexure to the show cause notice.

8. The Appellate Authority did not accept the petitioner's contention. He had noted that the personal hearings were scheduled by the Adjudicating Authority on three separate occasions but none had appeared on behalf of the appellant. Further, the appellant had not filed any response to the show cause notice either. The Appellate Authority also noticed that the notices fixing personal hearings were sent at the same address as the order-in-original dated 17.08.2016 and the show cause notice. Admittedly, the show cause notice and the said order were received by the appellant and therefore, the contention that it had not received the notices granting personal hearings appeared to be "a weak plea and an afterthought". The contention that the appellant had realised the export proceeds in respect of some of the Shipping Bills in question was also rejec