Page 209 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] SKYLINE EXPORTS v. DEPUTY COMMR. OF CUS. (EDI-DRAWBACK), CHENNAI 255

ries/defects therein shall be exhibited by 10.00 a.m. on the very next day when
the notice was made public. All exporters were requested to respond to the que-
ries within 10 days. It was stated that if no responses were received resolving the
raised queries, the claims would be disposed on merits. Admittedly, the petition-
er did not respond to the same.
4. On 28-10-2004, the petitioner made a representation to the Grievance
Committee for sanctioning the drawback claim. On 5-11-2004, a letter was re-
ceived from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (EDI-Drawback)/R1 stating
that the drawback claims had been reduced to zero and disposed. Between 13-12-
2004 and 15-10-2005 the petitioner filed representations before the authorities at
various levels within the Customs Department requesting sanction of the draw-
back claims. Since there was no action forthcoming, W.P. No. 15015 of 2005 was
filed seeking a mandamus to direct R1 to dispose the drawback claims. This Writ
Petition was withdrawn on 6-10-2005 granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue
the issue with the Chief Commissioner. On 22-12-2005, the Chief Commissioner
of Customs rejected the claims, endorsing the view of the first respondent, by
letter dated 5-11-2004. The petitioner was of the view that the order was a non-
speaking order that was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice
and thus filed W.P. No. 3904 of 2006 seeking a mandamus directing R1 to pass a
proper, speaking order, in accordance with law. This Writ Petition came to be
dismissed on 29-7-2009 as not maintainable and hit by res judicata. A Writ Appeal
filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed on 3-12-2009.
5. On 2-3-2010, the petitioner filed supplementary claims for drawback.
Admittedly, there is no authority in law in terms of which the said claims have
been made. Not content with filing the aforesaid claims, W.P. No. 16319 of 2011
was also filed seeking a mandamus directing R1 to dispose the supplementary
claims. This Writ Petition was ordered on 19-8-2011 directing R1 to consider and
pass orders on the supplementary claims on merits and in accordance with law.
R1 passed an order thereafter on 28-11-2011 rejecting the supplementary draw-
back claims and this order travelled in appeal to the Commissioner of Customs
(Appeals). The first appellate authority, vide order dated 29-11-2012, rejected the
claims in respect of 12 shipping bills and directed R1 to sanction the drawback
with regard to the remaining 23 claims. The reasoning was that the supplemen-
tary claims had been time barred, since the claims, dated 2-3-2010 related to
transactions of the period 1999-2001. Cross appeals came to be filed before the
second respondent/Government of India, which came to be dismissed on 18-10-
2013. It is only the petitioner/assessee who has chosen to challenge the order
passed by the Government by way of the present Writ Petition.
6. In this case, it under the public notice dated 16-6-2000 that the Com-
missioner of Customs takes up all pending drawback claims for clearance.
Whether the processing of drawback claims can be carried out under a Public
Notice is itself moot, in the light of Rule 13 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties
and Service Tax Draw Back (Amendment) Rules, 2006, (in short ‘Rules’) which, at
sub-rule (3a) stipulates that if the claim for drawback was found to be incomplete
in regard to any material particulars or without necessary accompanying docu-
ments, the claim shall be returned to the claimant with a defect/deficiency memo
in the prescribed form for compliance by the assessee.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  225