ORDER :

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to quash the order in original issued by the 2nd respondent in proceedings dated 22.03.2021.

2. The order impugned is issued by the Joint Commissioner under the provisions of the Customs Act, confirming the demand of the customs duty and further, imposed penalty.

3. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of Glass, Import/Export and processing. The petitioner company had obtained advance authorisation dated 24.03.2015 for import of clear float glass and polyvinyl butyl. The petitioner company had an export obligation to export double layered laminated glass of a value of USD 498368.68. After fulfilling the export obligation, the petitioner company had submitted an application dated 21.01.2016 to the Zonal Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai. The said application submitted for obtaining an export obligation discharge certificate and in support of the said application, the petitioner had submitted the original advance authorization. Form-ANF-4F, original export promotion copies of the 11 shipping bills mentioned above, copies of the bills of entry and Appendix-23 certified by the Chartered Accountant. In response, the Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade issued a deficiency letter dated 25.01.2016, calling upon the petitioner to submit the bank realization certificates in respect of the exports made by them. The petitioner states that the said certificate was also submitted vide their letter dated 15.12.2017. Thereafter, there was no response from the Zonal DGFT, Chennai.

4. The Joint Commissioner of Customs / second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 06.11.2020, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why customs duty amounting to Rs.20,70,798/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Eight only) should not be demanded from the petitioner for allegedly non-fulfilling the export obligation caused upon them in terms of advance authorization dated 24.03.2015. The show cause notice was further proposed to confiscate the raw material imported by the petitioner and also impose penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1960. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 04.12.2020 to the Superintendent of Customs, informing him that they had fulfilled the export obligation and that an application was already filed with the 1st respondent on 21.01.2016. The petitioner states that all the copies of shipping bill and related documents were also submitted. The petitioner meanwhile sent reminders to the 1st respondent seeking issuance of the export obligation discharge certificate. The second respondent was requested to keep the adjudication proceedings in abeyance till a decision was taken by the first respondent. However, without considering any of these requests made by the petitioner, the impugned-Order-in-Original dated 22.03.2021, confirming the demands of customs duty of Rs.20,70,798/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Eight only) was issued. The order also imposed redemption file of Rs.9,80,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty Thousand only) and penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only).

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner themselves are aware of the appellate remedy available under the statute against the impugned order dated 22.03.2021. However, the impugned order has been passed without awaiting the decision of the licensing authority. Therefore, they have chosen to move the present writ petition. Further, the impugned order does not disclose the evidence submitted by the petitioner regarding the fulfillment of export obligation and therefore, the order impugned is non-speaking in this regard.

6. Thus, it is made clear by the petitioner that they are very much aware of the appellate remedy contemplated under the provisions of the Customs Act and in spite of that, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that the impugned order has been passed wit