The court upheld the rejection of duty drawback claims due to insufficient cause for delays, affirming that timely applications are necessary under statutory provisions.

ORDER :

1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitioner’s request to condone the delay in filing the claim for duty drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short “the Act”) read with Rule 7A of Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 (in short “the Drawback Rules”), in respect of the shipping bills disclosed in the impugned order.

2. Since a common impugned order has been passed for all the subject shipping bills, these writ petitions are disposed by a common order.

3. Heard Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; and Mr.S.Gurumoorthy, learned Senior Panel Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.2557 and 2560 of 2023 challenging the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the first respondent rejecting the very same duty drawback claim for the very same shipping bills. By an order dated 02.02.2023, this Court held that the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 rejecting the petitioner’s request for condoning the delay was a non-speaking order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, and therefore, remanded the matter back to the very same first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner as raised in their written submission dated 03.11.2022 and after affording one personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Only pursuant to the directions issued by this Court dated 02.02.2023 in W.P.Nos.2557 and 2560 of 2023, the first respondent, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner and after affording one personal hearing to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order dated 07.06.2023, once again rejecting the petitioner’s request for condoning the delay in making the duty drawback claim on the ground that sufficient cause has not been shown.

5. The impugned order has been passed under Rule 7A of the Drawback Rules, and the said Rule reads as follows:-

“7A. Power to relax:-

If the Central Government is satisfied that in relation to the export of any goods, the exporter or his authorised agent has, for reasons beyond his control, failed to comply with any of the provisions of these rules, and has thus been entitled to drawback, it may, after considering the representation, if any, made by such exporter or agent, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, exempt such exporter or agent from the provision of such rule and allow drawback in respect of such goods.”

6. Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, enables the petitioner to make a duty drawback claim for the subject shipping bills. Rule 5(1) of the Drawback Rules makes it clear that the petitioner will have to make a duty drawback claim within a period of 3 months from the date on which an order permitting clearance and loading of goods for exportation under Section 51 is made by proper officer of customs. As per the proviso to Rule 5(1), the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs may, if he is satisfied that the exporter was prevented by sufficient cause to file his claim within the period of three months, allow the exporter to file his claim within a further period of three months. Admittedly, in the case on hand, although the petitioner was allowed to clear and re-export the goods during September, 2018 - October, 2018, the duty drawback claim was filed only in December,2019- January,2020. Therefore,