Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

M/S.Sundaram Fasteners Ltd vs Specified Officer on 1 August, 2022

Author: R.Subramanian

Bench: R.Subramanian

                                                                                     WP.No.17601/2016



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 01.08.2022

                                                        CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                     WP.No.17601/2016 & WMP.No.15087/2016

                     M/s.Sundaram Fasteners Ltd
                     rep.by its Chief Financial Officer
                     Shri S.Meenakshisundaram
                     Auto Ancillary Unit, Mahindra City
                     Special Economic Zone
                     Kancheepuram District.                                             ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs

                     Specified Officer
                     MEPS-Special Economic Zone
                     National Highway
                     Tambaram, Chennai 600045.                                                  ...
                                                                                        Respondent

                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
                     issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the impugned proceedings of the
                     respondent passed in O.I.O.No.2/2015 dated 28.12.2015 rejecting the
                     drawback claim for Rs.33,98,980/- and also holding that the petitioner is not
                     eligible to the drawback claim of Rs.70,80,465/- under Section 26 of SEZ
                     Act read with Rule 2[1][j] of SEZ Rules, 2006 and quash the same.



                     1/5


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                           WP.No.17601/2016




                                               For Petitioner       : Mr.P.R.Renganath

                                               For Respondent       : Mr.R.Shankaranarayanan
                                                                      Additional Solicitor General of
                                                                      India assisted by
                                                                      Mr.B.Rabu Manohar


                                                                ORDER

(1) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Specified Officer, O/o.Development Commissioner, Madras Export Processing Zone [MEPZ] rejecting the claim of the petitioner for duty drawback and ordering recovery of a sum of Rs.70,80,465/- which has been sanctioned as drawback to the petitioner. (2) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs [Appeals] in Reference No.C48- I/95/O/2016-AIR. The Commissioner of Customs [Appeals] rejected the appeal in view of the specific communication from the Chief Commissioner, Customs, Zone, that the Commissioner of Customs [Appeals] shall not hear the appeals against the orders passed under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Therefore, the petitioner has 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17601/2016 come up with this writ petition challenging the original order of the Specific Officer.

(3) Heard Mr.P.R.Renganath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Shankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, learned counsel for the respondent. (4) At the outset, the learned Additional Solicitor General would agree that the rejection order passed by the Appellate Authority may not be sustainable inasmuch as, though the original order is passed by the Officer of the Special Economic Zone, the order is deemed to be passed under the Customs Act. Therefore, the Appellate Authority namely, the Commissioner [Appeals] was not justified in rejecting the appeal. The learned Additional Solicitor General would also add that by way of abundant caution, an amendment has also been incorporated in the Act and Rules itself enabling the appeal against the order of the Specified Officer of the Special Economic Zone before the Commissioner of Customs [Appeals]. (5) In view of the above the writ petition is allowed and the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs [Appeals] dated 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17601/2016 11.03.2016 is set aside and the appeal will stand restored with a direction to the Commissioner of Customs [Appeals] to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

01.08.2022 AP Internet : Yes To Specified Officer MEPS-Special Economic Zone National Highway Tambaram, Chennai 600045.

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17601/2016 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

AP WP.No.17601/2016 01.08.2022 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis