Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

No Notice Issued Prior to Passing Customs Duty Drawback Recovery Order: Madras HC Orders to Consider afresh [Read Order]

The principles of natural justice require an opportunity for the petitioner to present these documents before the authorities to substantiate that they are not liable to return the drawback amount, said the court.

No Notice Issued Prior to Passing Customs Duty Drawback Recovery Order: Madras HC Orders to Consider afresh [Read Order]
X

The Madras High Court has quashed a Customs Duty Drawback recovery order issued holding that no prior notice was served on the petitioner before passing the order. The writ petition was filed challenging the order in original dated 30 March 2021, by which the Deputy Commissioner of Customs confirmed the recovery of ₹3,76,447 as wrongly availed drawback for certain shipping bills...


The Madras High Court has quashed a Customs Duty Drawback recovery order issued holding that no prior notice was served on the petitioner before passing the order.

The writ petition was filed challenging the order in original dated 30 March 2021, by which the Deputy Commissioner of Customs confirmed the recovery of ₹3,76,447 as wrongly availed drawback for certain shipping bills listed in Table-I and imposed a penalty of ₹19,000 under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The petitioner, M/s. Ambara Exports contended that they had never received any notice from the authorities prior to the order and that all communications were sent to their old address, despite their current address being different. They also claimed to possess all Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs) for the concerned shipping bills and produced documents before the Court to substantiate their claim.

Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here

Justice Abdul Quddhose noted that the petitioner’s assertion of non-receipt of notices and possession of BRCs was supported by documentary evidence. It observed that the principles of natural justice require an opportunity for the petitioner to present these documents before the authorities to substantiate that they are not liable to return the drawback amount.

The Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs for fresh consideration on merits and after granting the petitioner a proper hearing. The petitioner has been permitted to produce all relevant documents, including the BRCs, during the fresh proceedings.

The bench also directed that final orders be passed within three months from the receipt of the order. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

M/s.Ambara Exports vs The Deputy Commissioner of Customs , 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1643 , W.P. No.28909 of 2025 , 8 August 2025 , Hari Radhakrishnan , Sai Srujan Tayi
M/s.Ambara Exports vs The Deputy Commissioner of Customs
CITATION :  2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1643Case Number :  W.P. No.28909 of 2025Date of Judgement :  8 August 2025Coram :  MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSECounsel of Appellant :  Hari RadhakrishnanCounsel Of Respondent :  Sai Srujan Tayi
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019