ORDER :

The writ on hand is filed challenging the order in original dated 27.03.2021 passed by the sole respondent.

2. The impugned order demanding Duty Drawback for non realisation of export proceeds is questioned mainly on the ground that the respondent has violated the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner to put forth their defence and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the reply letter dated 31.03.2017, the Chartered Accountant's Certificate submitted in terms of the Board Circular No.5/2009 dated 07.02.2009 and the letter dated 13.03.2021 were not considered by the respondent and for all these reasons the impugned order is pervase. At the out set it is contended that sufficient opportunity of personal hearing has not been extended to the petitioner and therefore the respondent has committed an act of violation of principles of natural justice.

3. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent disputed the said contention by stating that opportunities were afforded to the petitioner. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - IV issued Public Notice No.02/2018 dated 08.01.2018 wherein common personal hearing was notified to all exporters whose BRC was not realised for the period 2004-2014. The said Public Notice was uploaded on the website of Chennai Customs viz., chennaicustoms.gov.in and also forwarded to FIEO and Custom Broker Associations for circulation among its members. However, the exporter has not responded, in spite of several opportunities given to appear in person or through his authorised representative to produce evidence for the sale proceeds in respect of the above mentioned shipping bills. Further personal hearing were issued to the exporter vide letter dated 01.03.2021 in F.No.S.Misc.2/145/2016- DBK (BRC) giving 08.03.2021, 09.03.2021, 10.03.2021 as dates for scheduled personal hearing. However, the exporter has neither responded to the said personal hearing letter dated 01.03.2021 nor appeared for above mentioned hearing dates. It is contended that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to defend their case in the manner prescribed. Therefore the petitioner cannot now approach this Court with incorrect facts regarding the opportunities provided to the petitioner by the respondent to defend their case.

4. This Court is of the considered opinion that even in such circumstances the grievances if at all exists the same can be exhausted by filing an appeal before the appellate authority under the provisions of the Customs Act. The introductory paragraph of the impugned order states that an appeal against the order lies with the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Custom House, 5th floor, Chennai 600 001, under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, within 60 days of communication of this order. Thus the petitioner is very much aware of the appellate remedy contemplated and such an appellate remedy is also informed to the petitioner even through the impugned order. However without exhausting the appellate remedy the present writ petition is filed by merely stating that the respondent has violated the principles of natural justice. Such legal grounds can be adjudicated by the appellate authority namely the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and therefore entertaining the writ petition at this juncture would deprive the litigant from availing the benefit of appellate remedy which is undoubtedly valuable and important.

5. This Court has elaborately considered the issues with reference to preferring a statutory appeal before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in judgment dated 15.04.2021 in W.P.No.3144 of 2016 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“7. In order to avoid the Pre-Deposit, which is contemplated under the Statute, the practice of filing writ petitions is prevailing in t