The court allows an exporter to invoke exemption provisions despite prior limitation issues, enabling the reconsideration of claims.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be a manufacturer and exporter of baby garments. The dispute in the writ petition is with reference to certain exports of ‘Terry Burpcloth’ effected by the petitioner during the year 2014. As regards such exports effected, in the Shipping Bill No.1481869 dated 08.03.2014, the petitioner had shown the commodity that was exported under HSN 9801. However, the petitioner later realised that the heading under which the claim for duty drawback came to be processed with reference to the shipping bill referred to above was under an incorrect classification and in such circumstances sought to file a supplementary claim admittedly on 26.05.2016. The claim as above was processed/adjudicated by the order at Ext.P2 dated 19.07.2016. The adjudicating authority - 4^th respondent herein by the impugned order found that the claim having been raised beyond the period of fifteen months with reference to the requirements under Rule 15 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax (Duty Drawback) Rules 1995, (for short, ‘Drawback Rules’), the claim could not be accepted. As against the afore order at Ext.P2, the petitioner filed a further appeal, which also came to be rejected by the order at Ext.P4 dated 29.09.2016, essentially considering the claim with reference to the limitation prescribed as above. The matter was taken in further revision before the Government and by the order at Ext.P6, the earlier orders have been confirmed. It is in such circumstances, the petitioner has instituted the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Exts.P2, P4 and P6.

2. Heard Sri.P.R.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Smt.A.K. Preetha, learned Standing Counsel for the Department of Customs.

3. The fact that the supplementary claim was raised beyond the period with reference to the provisions of Rule 15 is not in dispute. On the face of the afore, the ultimate findings in Exts.P2, P4 or P6 cannot be said to be incorrect or arbitrary, as rightly contended by Smt.Preetha.

4. At the same time, this Court notices that the petitioner is relying on the provisions of Rule 17 of the Drawback Rules, as per which, the Central Government is empowered to exempt an exporter from the provisions of the Rules as such and allow the drawback in respect of such Rules. True, the afore contention has not been raised before the statutory authorities, including the Government, by the petitioner herein. But, merely, for the reason that such a contention was not raised, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not to be denied an opportunity to rely on the afore provision.

In such circumstances, I allow this writ petition, setting aside Ext.P6. There will be a direction to the Government to consider the revision petition filed by the petitioner afresh with specific reference to the provisions of Rules 17/19 of the Drawback Rules. Fresh orders to be passed as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-