Karnataka High Court
Himatsingka Seide Limited vs The Specifiied Officer, Kiadb Textile ... on 1 December, 2021
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.11329 OF 2021 (T-CUS)
BETWEEN:
HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
KUMARAKRUPA ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS
BENGALURU-560 001.
(REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
SRI.GANAPATHY C.B.)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SUNDARA RAMAN M.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIFIED OFFICER,
KIADB TEXTILE SEZ, HASSAN
KIADB TEXTILE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE
NEW MINERVA MILL, KIADB
PLOT NO.51, 52 AND 53,
HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE AND POST,
HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573 128
2. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE,
KIADB TEXTILE, SEZ HASSAN,
NEW MINERVA MILL, KIADB
PLOT NO.51, 52 AND 53,
HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE AND POST,
HASSAN,
KARNATAKA-573 128
(REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIFIED OFFICER)
2
3. THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (CZEZ)
OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER
COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING,
KAKKANAD CSEZ POST OFFICE
COCHIN-682 037.
4. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS)
BMTC BUILDING, ABOVE BMTC BUS STAND,
OLD AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR,
BANGALORE-560 071.
5. SHRI.S.SHAMA SUNDAR
SPECIFIED OFFICER,
KIADB TEXTILE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE,
NEW MINERVA MILL, KIADB,
PLOT NO.51, 52 AND 53,
HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE AND POST,
HASSAN,
KARNATAKA-573 128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AMIT DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R5
SRI R.YATEESH KUMAR, CGC FOR R2 AND R3
SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD 19.3.2021 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-1 AND DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE DUTY DRAWBACK CLAIMS OF
THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF ORDER IN APPEAL NO.44 OF
2020 DTD 3.3.2020 ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) ALONG WITH
APPLICABLE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 30 PERCENT PER
ANNUM IMMEDIATELY AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned Order-in-Original at Annexure - A dated 19.03.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 and a direction 3 to the respondents to pay duty drawback claims to the petitioner in terms of the Order-in-Appeal No.44/2020 dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) along with applicable interest at 30% per annum as provided under the Customs Act and for other reliefs.
2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the earlier round of litigation between the petitioner and the respondents, which culminated in the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs - Appeals whereunder the Appellate Authority set aside the Order dated 24.06.2019 passed by respondent No.1 and allowed the claim of the petitioner for duty drawback and consequential benefits in this regard. It is pointed out that the said Order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the 4 Commissioner has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondents, who are liable to comply with the said order and the directions issued by the Appellate Authority to disburse the duty drawback claim in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid Order dated 03.03.2020, petitioner submitted a representation dated 08.06.2020 calling upon the respondents to give effect to and implement the said order and disburse the duty drawback claim in favour of the petitioner in terms of the said order. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite personal hearing provided in favour of the petitioner wherein the Order dated 03.03.2020 and the claim of the petitioner was reiterated by him as can be seen from the record of personal hearing dated 17.12.2020, the respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned Order at Annexure - A dated 19.03.2021 erroneously rejecting the duty drawback claim of the petitioner aggrieved by which petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. It is submitted that apart 5 from the fact that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner is violative and contrary to the principles of resjudicata and public policy in the light of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 03.03.2020 having attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondents, the respondent No.1 was neither entitled nor empowered or authorized to go beyond / behind the said Order dated 03.03.2020 nor re-examine the claim of the petitioner which had been upheld by the Appellate Authority and consequently, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents to implement and give effect to the said Order dated 03.03.2020 and disburse the duty drawback claim in favour of the petitioner together with applicable interest in accordance with law at the earliest. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the following decisions:
i) Ramachandra Dagdu Sonavane Vs. Vithu Hira Mahar - (2009) 10 SCC 273;
ii) Forward Construction Co. Vs. Prabhat Mandal - (1986) 1 SCC 100;
6
iii) Koran Vs. Kamalashetty - AIR 1978 Ker.
172;
iv) Hukam Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of
India - (1976) 2 SCC 128;
v) M/s. Radiall India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of
India and others - WP 15127/2016 dated
24.09.2018;
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and referring to the documents produced by them would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. The material on record indicates that it is an undisputed fact that vide Order dated 24.06.2019, the respondent No.1 had rejected the claim of the petitioner for duty drawback. However, by Order dated 03.03.2020, the Appellate Authority not only set aside the said order dated 24.06.2019 passed by respondent No.1, but has also come 7 to the categorical conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the duty drawback claim made by him as well as interest on the same under Section 27A of the Customs Act. In fact, a perusal of the said Order dated 03.03.2020, which has undisputedly attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondents including respondent No.1 will clearly indicate that the claim of the petitioner for duty drawback together with applicable interest in accordance with the Customs Act has been upheld by the Appellate Authority; in the face of the aforesaid order dated 03.03.2020, which was completely and totally binding upon the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 did not have any jurisdiction or authority of law to venture beyond / behind the said order dated 03.03.2020 nor attempt to interpret the same in any manner whatsoever for the purpose of rejecting the claim of the petitioner which had been upheld by the Appellate Authority by setting aside the earlier order dated 24.06.2019 passed by the respondent No.1. In other words, the said Order dated 03.03.2020 was binding upon the respondent No.1 who had no other option than to give effect and implement the same thereby disbursing the duty 8 drawback claim in favour of the petitioner together with applicable interest as directed in the Order dated 03.03.2020 and failure on the part of the respondent No.1 to appreciate this and instead proceeding to reject the claim of the petitioner on irrelevant and extraneous grounds is clearly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the principles of resjudicata and consequently, the impugned Order dated 19.03.2021 deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents to give effect to and implement the said Order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority and disburse the duty draw back claims together with applicable interest at 30% per annum in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated time frame.
8. Insofar as the various contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respondents for the purpose of supporting the impugned order is concerned, it is necessary to state that under the impugned order, the respondent No.1 has proceeded to revisit / review the Order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority which is clearly impermissible in law particularly when the 9 Order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the higher Authority / Appellate Authority setting aside the earlier Order dated 24.06.2019 passed by respondent No.1 had attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon respondent No.1, who was neither entitled nor empowered to either interpret / re-examine / review / revisit or go behind / beyond the said Order dated 03.03.2020 and the only option available to the respondent No.1 was to give effect to and implement the Order dated 03.03.2020. Under these circumstances, none of the contentions urged by the respondents can be accepted and the same are accordingly rejected.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned order at Annexure - A dated 19.03.2021 is hereby quashed.
iii) Respondents are directed to pay / disburse the duty drawback claim in favour of the petitioner in terms of Order-
in-Appeal No.44/2020 dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner of 10 Customs (Appeals) together with applicable interest at the rate of 30% per annum in favour of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE SV