Page 227 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] FIROZ ALAM v. UNION OF INDIA 209

11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the impugned orders of the Policy Relaxation Committee cannot be held to
be sustainable. The ‘Certificate of Receipt of Supply’ duly certified and stamped/
endorsed by the Statutory Authorities would have been appreciated by the Poli-
cy Relaxation Committee - respondent No. 4 to grant the necessary relaxation.
The decision contrary to the same is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory
when such relaxation is extended to similarly situated units in condoning the
procedural of non-filing of the bills of export. As a result, the writ petitions suc-
ceed. Hence, the following :
ORDER
(1) Writ petitions are allowed.
(2) Proceedings are remanded to respondent No. 3 to examine the
‘Certificate of Receipt of Supply’ produced at Annexure-H to the writ pe-
titions. RA may accept other documents in lieu of bill of export provided
there is a corroborative evidence/co-relation to the ARE-1/Excise attest-
ed invoice bearing the details of advance authorization/file number un-
der which the goods were removed for discharge of export obligation.
(3) Respondent No. 3 shall check and ensure that the drawback
has not been claimed either by supplier or recipient against such supply.
(4) On such corroborative evidence placed on record by way of
‘Certificate of Receipt of Supply’, the same shall be accepted by respond-
ent No. 3. Requirement of bill of export for discharge of export obligation
against advanced authorization albeit such advanced authorization
number not reflected in ARE-1 shall be condoned.
(5) This exercise shall be completed by the respondent No. 3 in an
expedite manner in any event not later than two months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the order.
________

2020 (373) E.L.T. 209 (Pat.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Anjana Mishra, J.
FIROZ ALAM
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20385 of 2012, decided on 10-5-2017
Seizure - Reason to believe - Goods not proved to be specified goods
liable for confiscation whereas entire seizure and adjudication proceedings
initiated on a presumption that Goat Skin is a notified item and place of
search was a notified area, attracting the jurisdiction of the Customs authority
- Goods seized from petitioner’s godown and authorities not having any ‘rea-
son to believe’ that goods so seized were liable for confiscation - Consequent-
ly, the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner seems to be
without jurisdiction and petitioner cannot be compelled to participate in the
auction and/or subject himself to the confiscation proceeding - Goods so

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  227