Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 8794
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Abdul Quddhose, J
M/S.CHANDAN TEXTILES – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (DEPB) – Respondent
W.P.No.24234 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sethu Prabakaran, Hari Radhakrishnan
For the Respondents: Revathi Manivannan
The court directed the customs authority to reconsider a representation for refund of customs duty based on a specific notification, ensuring the principle of natural justice by granting a personal hearing.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under 'Article 226 of the Constitution of India' seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondent to re-assess Bills of Entry and grant refunds with interest based on 'Notification No.30/2004-CE'. It was contended that 'excess customs duty was paid by the petitioner while obtaining clearance of the goods' and the representation for refund remained unconsidered. The court determined that the respondent should reconsider the request. The issue is whether the respondent should be directed to re-consider the petitioner's request for refund. The court reasoned that 'no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if a direction is issued to the respondent to re-consider the petitioner’s request once again by affording personal hearings to them'. this Court directs the respondent to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner’s representation, dated 23.02.2011 seeking for refund along with applicable interest for the subject bills of entries morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition, based on the notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 09.07.2004, after affording adequate personal hearings to the petitioner, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for customs duty refund based on notification (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. respondent's denial of refund entitlement (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observation on reconsideration and personal hearing (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. direction to pass final orders within twelve weeks (Para 7 , 8) |
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to re-assess the Bills of Entry No.546281 dated 22.06.2010, 546517 dated 22.06.2010, 572192 dated 19.07.2010, 581634 dated 28.07.2010, 616328 dated 02.09.2010, 633704 dated 20.09.2010, 665055 dated 21.10.2010, 705945 dated 30.11.2010, 752984 dated 19.01.2011, 789523 dated 22.02.2011 by extending the benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 and order consequential refund along with applicable interest.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Mandamus, to direct the respondent to re-assess the Bills of Entries morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition by extending the benefit to the petitioner as per Notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 09.07.2004 and consequentially, order refund along with applicable interest to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner claims that as per notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 09.07.2004, the petitioner is entitled for refund of customs duty and applicable interest for the subject bills of entries morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition. The petitioner claims that excess customs duty was paid by the petitioner while obtaining clearance of the goods. The petitioner relies upon the notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 09.07.2004 for the purpose of claiming refund along with applicable interest. Since the representation of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent denying the contentions of the petitioner by disputing that the petitioner is not entitled for refund as prayed for in this writ petition.
4. However, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if a direction is issued to the respondent to re-consider the petitioner’s request once again by affording personal hearings to them, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
5. Admittedly, before filing this writ petition, the representation of the petitioner seeking for refund based on notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 09.07.2004 was not considered by the respondent though personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner.
6. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representation.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the respondent to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner’s representation, dated 23.02.2011 seeking for refund along with applicable interest for the subject bills of entries morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition, based on the notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 09.07.2004, after affording adequate personal hearings to the petitioner, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
