Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 24690
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.02.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Writ Petition No.2991 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.3355 & 3356 of 2021 M/s. Precision Equipments (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, P.K.Easwaramurthy, Plot No.B~70(1) SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu~602 105. ... Petitioner ~vs~
1. Commissioner of Customs (EODC~DEEC), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Office of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai~IV, 60, Rajaji Salai, Custom House, Chennai~600 001.
2.The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, 4th and 5th floor, Shastri Bhavan Annex Building, No.26, Haddows Road, Chennai~600 006. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent department relating to issuance of the order~in~original No.74231/2020 dated 28.02.2020 in reference number F.No.S45/242/2015~DEEC~EODC~CH~IV and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Vasa Lohith Kumar For R1 : Mr.K.S.Ramasamy, standing counsel For R2 : Mr.S.Diwakar, SPC
The court emphasized the importance of fulfilling export obligations and the need for providing an opportunity to present relevant documents before the authority.
Headnote:
Redemption Certificate - Export Obligations - The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the 1st respondent for reconsideration, directing the petitioner to place all relevant documents before the 1st respondent for issuance of a fresh order within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, engaged in export of goods, obtained an advance authorisation subject to fulfilling export obligations. Despite fulfilling the obligations and obtaining a redemption certificate, the 1st respondent issued an order imposing a sum of Rs.93,48,178/~ along with other penalties and confiscation of goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the export obligation was fulfilled in entirety as evidenced by the redemption letter, and therefore, the impugned order called for interference. The court quashed the order and remanded the matter to the 1st respondent for reconsideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fulfillment of export obligations, breach of natural justice, and the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner must be provided an opportunity to place relevant documents before the 1st respondent, and the impugned order was quashed with directions for reconsideration.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the 1st respondent for reconsideration, with the petitioner permitted to place all relevant documents before the 1st respondent.
ORDER
The petitioner assails an order-in-original dated 28.02.2020.
2.The petitioner is engaged inter alia in export of goods. In relation thereto, the petitioner had applied for and obtained an advance authorisation. Such advance authorisation was issued in favour of the petitioner on 13.01.2015 subject to the condition that the petitioner would fulfil the export obligations as per the Advance Authorisation Scheme. The petitioner also executed a bond for a sum of Rs.1,08,78,000/- with regard to fulfilment of such export obligations. Upon receipt of a show cause notice dated 06.02.2019, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent and requested for the redemption certificate. While the petitioner was awaiting such redemption certificate, it is stated that a second show cause notice dated 06.11.2019 was issued. Although the petitioner produced the communication to the 2nd respondent requesting for the redemption certificate, it is stated that the 1st respondent issued the order impugned herein by which it was concluded that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.93,48,178/- along with interest thereon. In addition, by such order, goods valued at Rs.2,98,61,214/- were confiscated, subject to payment of redemption fine of Rs.10,00,000/-, and penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- was imposed. The writ petition was filed in the above facts and circumstances.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the letter dated 18.02.2019 from the petitioner to the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade requesting the said authority to issue the redemption certificate at an early date. He also pointed out that such redemption letter was eventually issued on 18.11.2020, but that the impugned order was issued in the meantime. Since the petitioner fulfilled the export obligations in full and obtained a redemption certificate to that effect, learned counsel submits that the petitioner should be provided an opportunity to place the redemption certificate before the 1st respondent. He also points out that principles of natural justice were breached in as much as the 1st respondent proceeded to issue the order in spite of the petitioner pointing out that the request for redemption certificate was pending with the 1st respondent. In support of the contention that interference by the writ court is warranted in the circumstances, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench in M/s.Ramsays Corporation Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2022 (381) E.L.T. 372 (Madras) (Ramsays Corporation), particularly paragraph 6 thereof.
4. These contentions were countered by learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner applied for and obtained an advance authorisation on condition that export obligations are fulfilled within the specified period, and that corroborative evidence in the form of a redemption certificate is submitted in time. Since the petitioner was unable to provide evidence of having fulfilled the export obligation, learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent had no option but to issue the order impugned herein. He also submits that the petitioner had a statutory remedy against the impugned order and that the facts and circumstances do not justify the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. In support of these submissions, he relies upon the order passed by this Court on 09.06.2021 in W.P.No.12498 of 2021, M/s.Fuso Glass India Private Limited v. The Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade and another (Fuso Glass), particularly paragraphs 9 to 12 thereof. In this regard, he submits that the fact situation was nearly identical in that case.
6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that he has nothing to add to the documents already placed on record by the petitioner, including the redemption letter issued on 18.11.2020.
7. In order to substantiate the contention that the export obligation was fulfilled
