The Madras High Court quashed the Customs Commissioner’s order rejecting to convert drawback shipping bills to drawback-cum-advance authorization shipping bills.
The petitioner is a manufacturer and exporter of garments. In the course of their business, the petitioner had obtained Advance Authorization dated 08.07.2014 from the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (JDGFT), Coimbatore for import of “100 % polyester knitted fabric, micro polar fleece print both side brushed and one side anti-pill” and the petitioner had an export obligation to export ladies pyjama set consisting of two garments, namely 100% cotton knitted ladies top (procured indigenously) and 100% polyester knitted fabric, micro polar fleece print both side brushed and one side anti-pill fab plant (imported under the advance authorization) for a value of USD 223,822 within a period of 180 months from the date of issue of authorization.
On the strength of the advance authorization, the petitioner imported raw materials and the petitioner manufactured the pyjama and exported the same by filing shipping bills and the same were filed under the ‘draw back scheme’. Since the top portion of the pyjama was manufactured using inputs/fabrics procured locally and the pants was manufactured using the imported inputs, under advance authorization scheme, the shipping bills had to be filed under the ‘Drawback-cum-Advance Authorization Scheme’.
Therefore, the petitioner filed a request to the respondent authority, seeking to convert the ‘drawback shipping bill’ to ‘drawback-cum-advance authorization shipping bill’. As there was no response, the petitioner sent reminders.
Since, there was no response, the petitioner had sent reminders to the first respondent, which also went in vain. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a grievance in Centralized Public Grievance Redressal System and the same was disposed of by the respondent authority
Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s efforts for conversion of ‘drawback shipping bill’ to ‘drawback-cum-advance authorization shipping bill’ are vain.
The single judge bench of Justice J.Nisha Banu while quashing the impugned order the impugned order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the respondent, remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration after giving reasonable opportunity including the personal hearing and appropriate orders shall be passed on merits and in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be completed by the respondent, within a period of 6 weeks.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment