Page 159 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUNCHAN TRADING CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 837

the letter dated 11-6-2015 stated categorically that proportionate sale
price of the consignment attributable to the appellant is
Rs. 14,21,384/- and that was realised by Revenue. Deducting the duty
element, appellant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 10,72,624/-. The
manner the Commissioner has made a working, that shows that he
has carried out the direction of the Tribunal in letter and spirit and
applied his mind. When the worksheet of the Commissioner is mak-
ing very clear entitling the appellant to the proportionate sale price of
the goods and duty payable on the goods is deductible without keep-
ing the matter pending, it is directed that the appellant shall be paid
Rs. 10,72,624/- within one week of receipt of this order, identifying
the claimant in accordance with law.
(ii) With the aforesaid direction appeal is allowed. In the meantime, if any
money has been paid to the appellant on the disputed sale that shall
be deducted while making the final payment as directed above.
2. The petitioner firm is an exporter of goods from Hong Kong. The
goods were abandoned by the importer and therefore they were auctioned. The
petitioner being the exporter from the Hong Kong initiated proceedings before
the respondents which ultimately culminated in the above Final Order No.
40071/2016, dated 13-1-2016 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tri-
bunal.
3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for interest on the
ground that the petitioner is entitled to interest. Opposing the prayer for such
relief, the Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has no
locus standi to file the present writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution
of India. He submits that it is open for the petitioner to file a suit to recover the
interest in a civil suit.
4. The Learned Counsel for the respondents also submits that the
amount which was directed to be refunded is not a duty within the meaning of
Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, there is no basis on which the
petitioner can claim the interest on belated payment.
5. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Fargo Marine Co. Ltd. v. Commis-
sioner of Customs (Sea Port), Chennai, 2014 (304) E.L.T.642 (S.C.).
6. The Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has re-
lied on the following two decisions :-
(i) Cosmo Tours & Travels & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2010 (4) AD
(Delhi) 565.;
(ii) Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Union of India,
order, dated 2-5-2011 passed by the Calcutta High Court in W.P.
No. 388 of 2003.
7. In these two decisions, the Delhi High Court and the Calcutta High
[Court] have taken a view that a foreigner has [no] locus standi to invoke the ju-
risdiction of the High Court to enforce the fundamental rights under Part III of
the Constitution of India.
8. I have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the pe-
titioner.
9. The petitioner became entitled to the amount finally pursuant to the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  159