HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10827/2021

M/s. Paras Marble, A Proprietary Firm Through Its Proprietor

Gunsagar Karnawat S/o Late Devendra Kumar Karnawat, Aged

About 78 Years, Having Office And Residence At Kalpna Kunj,

Opp. City Hospital, Rajsamand.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Union Of India, Through Secretary Department Of

Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.

2.

Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai-Ii, Custom House, 60

Rajaji Salai, Chennai.

3.

Deputy Commissioner Of Customs (Refunds-Ii), Custom

House, 60 Rajaji Salai, Chennai.

4.

Assistant Director General Of Foreign Trade, Government

Of India, Ministry Of Commerce And Industries, Office Of

Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade Iiird Floor, Udyog

Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Raj.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Jaideep Singh

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, ASG

Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat

Mr. B.P. Bohra

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

25/07/2022

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner

M/s. Paras Marble for challenging the order (Annexure-10) dated

16.10.2020 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Customs

(Refunds-II) and to direct the respondent No.3 to decide the

petitioner’s refund application afresh by treating it to be within

limitation.

(2 of 6)

[CW-10827/2021]

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ

petition are noted hereinbelow:-

The petitioner herein being a proprietory firm, had imported

capital goods without payment of duty against EPCG licenece

No.1330000397 dated 28.11.2003 for which a bank guarantee to

the tune of Rs.4,84,000/- was submitted in favour of the

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. The bank guarantee was

enforced by the Customs Department in the year 2011. The

petitioner fulfilled the export obligation against the EPCG licence

whereupon, the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign

Trade, Jaipur issued an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate

(‘EODC’) dated 10.10.2018 in favour of the petitioner. As per

Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1962, a registered dealer is

entitled to seek refund of the security amount once the EODC is

issued and the time limit for filing the refund application is six

months from the date of clearance of goods which as per the

petitioner is 10.10.2018 in the case at hand.

Having acquired the EODC, the petitioner applied for the

refund of the amount of the bank guarantee vide letter dated

24.11.2018. However, it seems that the application was

inadvertently addressed to the Commissioner, Customs and should

have been filed before the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of

Customs which is the proper officer to grant refunds under Section

27 of the Customs Act.

(3 of 6)

[CW-10827/2021]

A letter dated 30.04.2019 was issued from the office of the

Commissioner Customs and the petitioner was informed to

approach the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds), Refund Section,

Commissionerate-IV, Customs House, Chennai for claiming the

refund. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a fresh refund

application along with all relevant documents vide letter dated

20.05.2019 to the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds). The

petitioner has claimed that pursuant to submission of the said

application to the proper officer, various reminders were issued

but the refund application of the petitioner was not considered.

A letter dated 03.08.2020 was issued by the Assistant

Commissioner informing the petitioner that its refund application

could not be processed because the same had not been filed in the

prescribed format and accordingly the application was being

returned to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a fresh application

to the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) in the prescribed form

No.102 as per the Custom Refund App