COMMON ORDER

By consent of both the parties, these writ petitions have been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. Mr.T.Ramesh Kutty, learned Senior Standing Counsel (Customs)

accepts notice on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4.

3. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders passed by the first respondent under Rule 7A of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995, rejecting the petitioner's request for claiming duty drawback as per the provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the petitioner has not satisfactorily established the reasons for delay in filing the duty drawback claim.

4. Heard Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Ramesh Kutty, learned Senior Standing Counsel (Customs) for respondents 1 to 4.

5. According to the petitioner, he had imported accessories meant for manufacture of mobile phones from China. After utilisation of the imported accessories in the manufacture of mobile phones, the left over accessories were re-exported and the petitioner is entitled for duty drawback as per the provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner had re- exported the accessories within the period of two years as provided under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is not in dispute. The accessories re-exported by the petitioner has also been identified by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. However, as per Rule 5(1) of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995, the petitioner will have to make a drawback claim within a period of three 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 the said Rule, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs may, if he is satisfied that the exporter has given sufficient cause to file his claim, allow the exporter to file his claim within a further period of three months. The petitioner claims that due to unavoidable circumstances they could not file the duty drawback claim within the stipulated period as prescribed under Rule 5 of the aforementioned Rule. The petitioner had filed duty drawback claim only on 27.12.2019. Since the petitioner could not file the duty drawback claim within the stipulated period as fixed under Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rule, he had sought for relaxation as per Rule 7A of the said Rule on 18.06.2020 before the 1st respondent (Central Government). Rule 7A of the aforementioned 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 provisions of such rule and allow drawback in respect of such goods."

6. Under the impugned orders, the relaxation petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 7A of the aforementioned Rule has been rejected by the first respondent on the ground that the petitioner has not satisfactorily established the reasons for delay in filing of duty drawback claim in respect of the shipping bills and therefore they are not entitled for duty drawback as per the provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the following grounds:

(a) The petitioner has satisfied all the statutory requirements for availing duty drawback as per the provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(b) Only due to unavoidable circumstances, which has been disclosed in the written submissions made by the petitioner before the first respondent, the petitioner could not file the duty drawback claim within t